CWP 2771/2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH O R D E R (1) SB Civil Writ Petition No.2771/2010 M/s Bhiwadi Grit Private Limited Versus. State of Rajasthan & another (2) SB Civil Writ Petition No.2772/2010 M/s Bharti Grits Versus. State of Rajasthan & another (3) SB Civil Writ Petition No.2773/2010 Ramhet Mev Versus. State of Rajasthan & another (4) SB Civil Writ Petition No.2774/2010 M/s Bhiwadi Grit Private Limited Versus. State of Rajasthan & another (5) SB Civil Writ Petition No.3242/2010 Smt. Sarita Jain Versus. The State of Rajasthan & another (6) SB Civil Writ Petition No.3243/2010 M/s Jain Stone Crushing Company Versus. The State of Rajasthan & another (7) SB Civil Writ Petition No.3244/2010 M/s Jain Stone Crushing Company Versus. The State of Rajasthan & another DATE OF ORDER : 09/03/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. RN Mathur ] Mr. RK Mathur ], for petitioners. Since the controversy involved in the above writ petitions is identical, the same are being decided by this common order. The petitioners are mining lease holders and CWP 2771/2010 [2] lease was allotted to individual petitioner for lime stone by the Mining Department which has been duly executed under Rule 19 and presently in operation. But because of illegal mining being alleged, after physical verification was made, all the petitioners were individually served with show cause notice and after the reply was taken into consideration, the Assistant Engineer (Mines) vide its order dated 03/02/2010 held them guilty of illegal mining and misuse of 'Ravannas' in exercise of power under Rule 48(5) of the Rajasthan Mines Minerals Concession Rules, 1986 (“Rules, 1986”) imposed ten times penalty of alleged excavation of the royalty payable under provisions of the Rules, 1986. Counsel for petitioners submit that the power which has been exercised by the Engineer (Mines) under Rule 48 is wholly without jurisdiction and it has been further contended that the penalty of ten times, which has been inflicted of the alleged mining excavated by the individual petitioner, has also not been supported by a show cause notice and so also the physical verification report furnished to the individual petitioner and in such circumstances, the order impugned is not legally sustainable. Counsel further submit that Rule 48 could be invoked if holder is excavating the minerals CWP 2771/2010 [3] without holding a valid lease/license as the case may be in absence whereof it has no application. It has also been contended that the respondents have failed to afford a fair opportunity of hearing to the individual petitioner before passing the order impugned. This could not have been controverted by the petitioners that the order, which has been passed by the Engineer (Mines), impugned in the instant petitions, is appealable under Rule 43 of the Rules, 1986. The submissions made by counsel for the petitioners are of no substance for the reason that sub-rule 5 of Rule 48 of the Rules, 1986 contemplates that if any mining operator/lease holder contravenes the terms and conditions of the mining lease/quarry license, the authority is competent to exercise powers under Rule 48(5) certainly after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the mining lease holder can pass an order, if finally arrived to a conclusion that the lease holder has contravened the conditions of lease. However, this Court finds substance in the submission made to the extent that the authority is competent to compute ten times of the royalty payable on the prevalent rates of the mineral excavated but there should be some justification while computing ten times royalty as alleged to CWP 2771/2010 [4] be payable. But this cannot be ruled out that once there is a provision of efficacious remedy of appeal available to the petitioner under Rule 43 of the Rules, it would not be appropriate for this Court to examine on merits since any observation made will certainly prejudice rights of the petitioners while assailing the order impugned before the appellate authority. But at the same time, this Court would like to observe that if the appeal is preferred by the petitioner under Rule 43 of the Rules, 1986, the same may be decided on merits in accordance with law obviously after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. However, further execution in pursuance to the order impugned of Assistant Engineer (Mines), Alwar dt. 03/02/2010 till disposal of the appeal, if preferred, under Rule 43 of the Rules, shall remain stayed provided the petitioner deposits 50% of the amount computed in terms of the order impugned within two months from today. With these directions/observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu-2771-CW-2010-final.doc