[2025:RJ-JP:29396] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7106/2025 Himmat Singh Singhvi S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Singhvi, Aged About 78 Years, R/o 117A, Janta Colony, District Jaipur (Raj.), At Present Resident Of Main Bazaar, Chhabra, District Baran (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Baran. 2. Joint Secretary, Mines Department, State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal with Ms. Deepti Jindal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Order 01/08/2025 1. This petition is filed aggrieved of penalty imposed vide order dated 02.02.2024 by Assistant Mining Engineer, Baran and dismissal of the revision petition on 08.04.2025. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was allotted mining lease for khasra No.617 situated in village Bapcha, Tehsil Chhabra, District Baran. On 09.06.2016, a spot inspection was carried out and panchnama report was prepared. In pursuance of the panchnama report, notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.06.2016 to show-cause regarding the violation of Section 4 and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’) and Rules 48 and 68 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short ‘the Rules’). The notice [2025:RJ-JP:29396] (2 of 2) [CW-7106/2025] was responded by reply dated 05.07.2016 and the copy of the inspection report was asked for. After a lapse of seven and half years, the impugned order imposing penalty was passed. The revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reply filed to notice was not considered, inspection report was not supplied and without issuing notice or granting an opportunity of hearing, the penalty order was passed. 4. Per contra, after issuing of notice and filing of reply, copy of the inspection report was supplied on an application made under Right to Information Act, 2005. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 6. It is an admitted fact that before passing the order of penalty, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. The penalty order is in violation of principles of natural justice, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent No.1 to decide the matter afresh. 7. The writ petition is allowed. (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/31