CW 4634/2005-Chhanwar Lal Vs. State : Order dt : 26.02.2008 1/3 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4634/2005 Chhanwar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : 26th February, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. S.P. Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. G.L. Prajapat for the respondents. --------- 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. This petition is directed against Annex.P/4 dated 14.2.2005 raising a demand of Rs.6,18,496/- against the petitioner by issuing summons under Rule 69 of the Mineral Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 for issuing Ravanai in respect of lime stone illegally excavated from Bhed area. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sharma contends that under Rule 69 which only gives power to the Assessing Authority to summon the assessee no such demand could be raised by the Assessing Authority i.e. the Mining Engineer. 4. It appears to this Court that the petitioner has CW 4634/2005-Chhanwar Lal Vs. State : Order dt : 26.02.2008 2/3 unnecessarily rushed to this Court against Annex.P/4 which is merely a show cause notice or summon under Section 69 which only empowers the Assessing Authority to summon the person or lessee, who is using or dealing in the mineral in the State and such Assessing Authority may demand necessary information and source from where the mineral has been procured. The petitioner assessee is certainly free to approach the said Assessing Authority and make his submissions and ask for the relevant information on the basis of which such summon was issued to him. After such objection and representation is made by the petitioner, the Assessing Officer i.e. the Mining Engineer is expected to pass a proper assessment order under Rule 38 which empowers him to make assessment and determination of royalty amount due from the assessee during the assessment years. Further appeal has been provided under Rule 43 to the Director of Mines. Merely because an amount of alleged royalty demand is mentioned in such summon, that does not render such summon illegal, though it should be so stated in the summon under Rule 69 that it is a proposed demand against the assessee. 5. Thus, the said MMCR Rules 1986 contain a code in itself CW 4634/2005-Chhanwar Lal Vs. State : Order dt : 26.02.2008 3/3 and mechanism which provides remedy to the aggrieved assessee or lessee under these rules. 6. In the facts and circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed as a proper alternative remedy is available to the petitioner and the petitioner is expected to raise his objections and make submissions before the concerned Assessing Authority in pursuance of summon issued to him under Rule 69 of MMCR, 1986. The Assessing Authority is also expected to provide the adverse material on the basis of which proposed demand is sought to be raised to the assessee. The petitioner is accordingly directed to remain present before the said Authority on 17th March, 2008 and thereafter it is expected that the said authority shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 3 months. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.13 babulal/-