1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.3309/2009. : : N. K. Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 17.4.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Kedar Solanki for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.10.2008 by which revision petition of petitioner was dismissed and against the order dated 24.10.2007 by which the Assistant Mining Engineer, Alwar raised a demand of Rs.80,538/- against the petitioner on the basis that he excavated minerals from outside the area leased out to him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no satisfactory verification has been made that such minerals were actually excavated by the petitioner and that measurement etc has not been properly done. Learned 2 counsel further submitted that while at one place the Revisional Authority has noticed that inspection report was counter signed by representative of the petitioner whereas in the concluding part, it has been stated that it is signed by petitioner himself. Learned counsel submitted that although the petitioner was constrained to deposit demanded sum under protest, but the allegation that 'Ravannas' were allegedly misused by the petitioner and that he carried out illegal excavation is totally baseless. No Panchnama was prepared and that demand was made on the basis of vague evidence. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned demand dated 24.10.2008, I find that order passed by Assistant Mining Engineer was preceded by actual inspection of mining area and that such inspection was attended by representative of petitioner. Initially when a notice issued to the petitioner, he gave a cheque to satisfy demand. When that cheque was not cleared, subsequent demand notice again sent, which the petitioner submits that was satisfied by making payment under protest. All that is being argued depends on appreciation of factual aspects, which has been gone into by two authorities. Mere fact that 3 inspection report was signed by petitioner at the concluding part petitioner does not reflect that the order is bad because in fact petitioner himself does not dispute the inspection report, was counter signed by his representative. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.92.