CW NO.1763/05- M/s National Minerals Vs. The State & Anr. : Order dt.11.3.08 1/4 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1763/2005 M/s National Minerals Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of order : 11th March, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. B.M. Bohra for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Boob, Addl. Government Advocate. --------- 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the notice Annex.8 dated 14.2.2005 issued under Rule 69 of MMCR, 1986 raising a demand against the petitioner for the alleged sale of mineral i.e. lime stone which according to the respondent, Mining Engineer was purchased by the petitioner from the persons who have done illegal mining between the period from 1998 to 2001. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner only held a stock permission issued by the respondent Mining Department on 19.5.1998 which was cancelled by the said department on 14th August, 2002. According to the petitioner, he did not indulge in any illegal mining and, therefore, he was not liable to pay the said demand. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also urged that by the said notice, straight-way demand of royalty could CW NO.1763/05- M/s National Minerals Vs. The State & Anr. : Order dt.11.3.08 2/4 not be raised against the petitioner without first determining the said amount and affixing the liability on the petitioner by passing the appropriate assessment order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with Rule 38 of the aforesaid Rules. He has also brought to the notice of the Court that in similar circumstances recently this Court has decided a writ petition namely S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4634/2005 – Chhanwar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 26.2.2008 wherein this Court has held in paras No.5 and 6 as under:- “5. Thus, the said MMCR Rules 1986 contain a code in itself 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 CW NO.1763/05- M/s National Minerals Vs. The State & Anr. : Order dt.11.3.08 3/4 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.” 3. The learned counsel for the respondents has however supported the said impugned notice. 4. Having heard learned counsels, this court is of the opinion that the controversy involved in this case is covered by the aforesaid judgment of this Court. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Mining Engineer, Nagaur to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in relation to the said notice under Rule 69 of the MMCR, 1986 for the proposed demand which is sought to be raised against the petitioner for the aforesaid period from 1998 to 2001 and pass appropriate assessment orders under Rule 38 of the aforesaid Rules. It is needless to add that if the petitioner is aggrieved of such assessment order he has an alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Rule 43 of the aforesaid Rules which he CW NO.1763/05- M/s National Minerals Vs. The State & Anr. : Order dt.11.3.08 4/4 would be free to avail. 6. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.s.2 babulal/-