SBCWP NO.291/2006 – MOHAN LAL V/S STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS.: ORDER DATED 3.3.2008 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.291/2006 Mohan Lal versus The State of Rajasthan and ors. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Arvind Shrimali, for the petitioner Mr.J.K.Chanda, for the respondents. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 3rd MARCH, 2008. JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition against the show cause notice given to him by the Mining Engineer, Nimbaheda vide Annex.1 dated 31.1.1997 and subsequent communication Annex.7 dated 19.5.1997 in which it was proposed that a demand of Rs.6,75,000/- would be recovered from the petitioner for alleged illegal mining works done by him. Since the SBCWP NO.291/2006 – MOHAN LAL V/S STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS.: ORDER DATED 3.3.2008 2/3 petitioner did not file his objection before the said Mining Engineer, the recovery notice by attachment of his property was issued by the Assistant Mining Engineer vide Annex.7 dated 28.5.2005. At this stage, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 4. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition inter alia raising a preliminary objection that an alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Rule 43 of MMCR, 1986 is available to the petitioner, if he is aggrieved by any order passed by the Mining Engineer determining the amount of royalty for alleged illegal mining. 5. Be that as it may, it appears to this Court that the petitioner has rushed to this Court without showing proper cause before the said Authority who is expected to pass appropriate order assessing the amount of royalty under Rule 38 of the Rules of 1986. Against the impugned show cause notice Annex.1 dated 31.1.1997 and subsequent communication dated 19.5.1997, it was expected of the petitioner to have shown cause before the said authority as to whether any illegal mining work was undertaken by him or not. Since the SBCWP NO.291/2006 – MOHAN LAL V/S STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS.: ORDER DATED 3.3.2008 3/3 petitioner apparently did not show cause before the said authority, the said authority proceeded to recover the said amount of Rs.6,75,000/- by attachment notice Annex.7 dated 28.5.2005. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Assistant Mining Engineer, Nimbaheda in the first instance on 17.3.2008 where the petitioner is expected to raise his objection to the aforesaid demand of Rs.6,75,000/-. The Assistant Mining Engineer is also expected to supply adverse material on the basis of which he determined the said demand of Rs.6,75,000/-, to the petitioner. After giving an opportunity of hearing, the said authority is expected to pass appropriate speaking order in accordance with Rule 38 of the MMCR, 1986 within a period of three months from today. It is needless to say that if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the said assessment order, he has alternative remedy under the law by way of an appeal under Rule43 of the aforesaid Rules. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of aforesaid directions. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.35 Ss/-