Case Note & Summary
The matter involved two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The petitioners held mining leases for stone ballast near Village Gopalpura, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu. The first petitioner was Banwari Lal Jhuria, and the second was M/s Jindal Stone Crushing Company through its partner Banwarilal Agarwal. They challenged demand notices issued by the State of Rajasthan through the Mines Department and the Assistant Mining Engineer, Churu. The dispute arose from allegations of unauthorized excavation and dispatch of mineral outside the lease area. On 26.07.2017, a Mauka inspection led to notices alleging 8,300 tonnes of illegal excavation in one case and 4,300 tonnes in the other. The petitioners replied, contending that boundary pillars had shifted due to a fresh demarcation and requested a hearing. However, the department issued demand notices dated 28.12.2017 requiring payment of Rs.19,29,000 and Rs.10,09,000, comprising ten times royalty and compounding fees, within three days under threat of lease cancellation. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed revisions under Rule 64 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, before the Joint Secretary (Mines), Udaipur. Those revisions were dismissed by a common order dated 26.09.2018. Thereafter, one petitioner deposited Rs.2,00,000 and the other deposited the full amount. Subsequently, fresh notices dated 24.10.2019 were issued relying on the same Mauka inspection but recalculating the alleged illegal excavation to 15,412.80 tonnes and 7,984.08 tonnes, raising enhanced demands of Rs.35,44,944 and Rs.18,36,339. The petitioners replied objecting to the unilateral escalation, but the department issued communications dated 26.11.2019 justifying the enhanced demands solely on the basis of an audit report by the Accountant General for the period 04/2015 to 03/2019. The core legal issues were whether enhanced demands without fresh inspection or opportunity of hearing were arbitrary, whether the writ petitions were maintainable given the alternative remedy under Section 63 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, and whether natural justice required disclosure of the basis for enhanced tonnage. Petitioners argued that no fresh inspection was conducted, no supporting material was disclosed, and no effective opportunity was afforded, making the demands arbitrary. Respondents contended that demands were based on approved mining plan, statutory provisions, and density, and raised the alternative remedy objection. The court noted that interim orders dated 14.01.2020 and 07.01.2020 had been passed by a coordinate bench. Under those orders, if the petitioners paid the amounts determined by the earlier demand order dated 28.12.2017 within two months, the enhanced demand raised by order dated 24.10.2019 would remain stayed. The available excerpt of the judgment does not include the final operative order. The court recorded the interim relief and the objections, but the final decision on the merits of the challenge, including maintainability and natural justice, is not available in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Mines and Minerals - Illegal Mining and Royalty Demand - Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, Rule 64 and Section 63 - Petitioners holding stone ballast mining leases challenged enhanced demand notices dated 24.10.2019 and 26.11.2019 that raised alleged illegal excavation quantities from 8,300 to 15,412.80 tonnes and from 4,300 to 7,984.08 tonnes based solely on an audit report for 04/2015 to 03/2019 - Court noted that earlier demand notices dated 28.12.2017 had been upheld by revisional authority on 26.09.2018 and amounts deposited; enhanced demand was stayed subject to payment of earlier demand - Held that interim relief granted on 14.01.2020 and 07.01.2020, with enhanced demand stayed until further orders (Paras 2,3,5,7,9). B) Constitution of India - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 - Maintainability and Alternative Remedy - Respondents objected that writ petitions were not maintainable due to alternative remedy under Section 63 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 - Court did not decide maintainability in the available excerpt but issued notice and granted interim relief, indicating consideration of the issue - Held that interim orders were passed without finally deciding the alternative remedy objection (Paras 7,9). C) Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 - Petitioners alleged that enhanced tonnage was determined without fresh inspection or disclosure of material and without affording effective opportunity to contest - Respondents contended demands were based on approved mining plan, statutory provisions, and density - Court recorded the rival contentions but final determination on natural justice violation is not available in the provided text - Held that the issue remained for adjudication while interim stay protected petitioners (Paras 5,6,9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether enhanced demand notices dated 24.10.2019 and 26.11.2019 issued without fresh inspection or opportunity of hearing and based solely on an audit report are arbitrary and violative of natural justice; whether writ petitions are maintainable when statutory alternative remedy under Section 63 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 is available.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
- alternative remedy under Section 63 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2017
- judicial review of administrative action
- natural justice
- burden of proof for enhanced demand
- conditional interim relief
