[2025:RJ-JP:29738] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4108/2008 Murari Lal Agarwal s/o Shri Prabhu Dayal Agarwal aged about 58 years, R/o 131, Bakat Nagar, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Deputy Secretary, Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Assistant Mining Engineer, Kotputali. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4105/2008 Damodar Prasad Agarwal S/o Shri Hanuman Sahai Agarwal, Village Post Kori, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Deputy Secretary, Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Assistant Mining Engineer, Kotputali. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ashwani Chobisa For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rahul Lodha, Addl.GC. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/08/2025 1. Since, common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, both the matters are heard together and decided by this common order. [2025:RJ-JP:29738] (2 of 3) [CW-4108/2008] 2. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the similar identical writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4119/2008 (titled as Shyam Sunder Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) has been decided by this Court against the same impugned orders dated 12.02.2004 and 28.01.2008 and both orders have been quashed and set-aside and the said petition has been allowed by granting liberty to the respondents to proceed if they want, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Counsel submits that the instant writ petitions be disposed of in the light of the similar directions issued by this Court in the case of Shyam Sunder Agarwal (supra). 3. Heard and considered the submissions made by the rival sides. 4. Looking to the aforesaid submissions made by counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that the similar controversy has already been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shyam Sunder Agarwal (supra) with the following observations and directions:- “The perusal of record shows that few “moka reports” were prepared by the respondents but perusal of it shows use of same language and the manner to prepare it. The “moka report” does” not contain number of the vehicles which alleged to be carrying minerals and it does not further give explanation as to why vehicle was not seized along with mineral. The illegal transportation of mineral was permitted by the respondents. The fact aforesaid is relevant and creates a doubt about bonafide of the respondents. If the vehicle was carrying [2025:RJ-JP:29738] (3 of 3) [CW-4108/2008] illegally excavated mineral then respondents were expected to seize the vehicle and mineral so as to make a proper assessment of the amount of royalty and to impose penalty thereupon. In absence of seizure of the vehicle or material, even assessment of quantity of the mineral carried in it cannot be said to be proper. The petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. It is moreso when deficiencies exist in the “moka report” as indicated above. Taking into consideration the aforesaid and as the appellate authority has not dealt with the issues while passing the impugned orders, they are, accordingly, set aside. With the aforesaid, writ petition is allowed. If at all the respondents want to proceed in the matter, they can do it after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner but after taking into consideration the deficiencies and shortcomings in the “moka report.” 5. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is identical and the same has already been set at rest in the case of Shyam Sunder Agarwal (supra), this Court finds no valid reason to take a different view. Accordingly, the instant writ petitions stand disposed of by quashing the orders impugned and granting liberty to the respondents to proceed further in the matter if they want, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. All other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /62-63