1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7231/2006 Shiv Dayal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors) Date of Order :- 05.02.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.R.P. Garg, for the petitioners. Mr.S.N. Rajawat, for the respondents. Mr.Zakawat Ali, Dy.G.A. The grievances of the petitioners are that respondent No.6, Bhograj Singh, who happens to own three mines near the mines owned by the petitioners, trespasses into the mining land of the petitioner, dumps waste material into the mining land of the petitioner and operates a crasher which causes a nuisance to the mining land of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they had brought the facts of trespassing and nuisance being caused by Bhograj Singh to the notice of the Collector, Sawai Madhopur, the Mining Engineer, the Assistant Mining 2 Engineer and the District Forest Officer vide their notice for demand of justice on 23.07.2006. However, despite the said notice, respondent Nos.1 to 5 have not taken any action against Bhograj Singh under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. R.P. Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently argued that respondent No.6 is continuously trespassing on the mining land of the petitioners. But, respondent Nos.1 to 5, are not taking any action against him. On the other hand, Mr. S.N. Rajawat, the learned counsel for the respondent No.6, claims that on 07.06.2006 and 23.06.2006 twice the area was inspected by the Assistant Mining Engineer. It was discovered that respondent No.6 is not encroaching, trespassing or causing any nuisance to the mining land which is operated by the petitioners. Thus, according to him, the claim made by the petitioners is baseless. 3 On the other hand, Mr. Zakawat Ali, the learned Deputy Government Advocate, has contended that in a S.L.P. dealing with the land in dispute, vide order dated 11.12.2000, the Apex Court has stayed the mining operation. Because of the stay, mining activities in the land in dispute have come to a grinding hault. Thus, presently there is no question of anyone trespassing or causing nuisance to the petitioners. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Chapter 7 of the Rules of 1986 deals with offences, penalties and prosecutions. Rule 48(1) clearly states that no person shall undertake any mining operations except in accordance with the terms and conditions of the mining lease, quarry licence, short term permit or any other permission granted under these rules. Rule 48(3) contains a penal provision. Rule 48(4) grants ample power to the Director, Superintending Mining Engineer (Vigilance), Mining Engineer, Mining 4 Engineer (Vigilance), or Assistant Mining Engineer to take action against those person who trespass on any land in contravention of the provisions of Sub-rule (1). Moreover, Rule 52 grants the power to investigate to the Director or to any person authorized either generally or in respect of a particular case of class of cases. Rule 54 of the Rules of 1986 grants powers of entry, inspection of records and seizure of books of accounts of a dealer/lessee. Thus, these rules grant ample powers to the respondent Nos.1 to 5 to take stern action against the respondent No.6, if the need so arises. Since ample powers have been granted to them, it is expected that they will exercise the said powers as and when the necessity arises. The notice for demand of justice dated 23.07.2006, the petitioners had brought to the notice of the respondent Nos.1 to 5, the contravention committed by respondent No.6. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 should have taken action and should have investigated the complaint forthwith. Be that as it may, even in future if any complaint is received from 5 the petitioners with regard to the alleged illegal activities on respondent No.6, then respondent Nos.1 to 5 are legally bound to investigate the complaint and to take necessary action in accordance with law. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with this observation that the respondent Nos.1 to 5 shall investigate any complaint filed by the petitioners with regard to the alleged illegal activities of respondent No.6 even in future. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki