[2025:RJ-JP:31637] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8518/2025 M/s Rameshwaram Stone Supplier, Nindhar Through Its Partner Smt. Sushila Devi W/o Shari Bal Ram Meena, R/o Village And Post Nidhar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, De- partment Of Mines And Petroleum Government Of Ra- jasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 3. Shyam Kapari S/o Unknown, Mining Engineer, Depart- ment Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vimal Choudhary JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 13/08/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 by which the application submitted by the petitioner seeking registration of mining lease has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for mining lease and the said application has rejected on 05.04.2000 against which an appeal was preferred and the same was allowed vide order dated 15.03.2001, in spite of the above, when the mining lease was not executed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court by way filing S.B. [2025:RJ-JP:31637] (2 of 3) [CW-8518/2025] Civil Writ Petition No.4600/2004, wherein a statement was made by the State Officials that because of pendency of the complaint before the Lokayukt, the lease could not be executed, however, it was apprised to the Court that the complaint was closed in the year 2008 and the record was destroyed in 2011. 3. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter, the above aforesaid petition submitted by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2024 directing the respondents to proceed further with the matter and pass speaking order, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. When instead of compliance of the aforesaid order, a notice was served by the respondents upon the petitioner thereafter vide letter dated 31.01.2025, wherein it is stated that the lease deed could not be executed and the response of the petitioner was called upon by granting the petitioner 30 days time to submit his reply/ stand. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid notice dated 31.01.2025 was received by the petitioner on 28.03.2025 and immediately, thereafter, i.e. on 24.04.2025, the petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid notice dated 31.01.2025. Counsel submits that on the back date, i.e., on 09.04.2025, prior to expiry, an application submitted by the petitioner seeking registration of lease deed has been rejected. Counsel submits that without granting any opportunity of hearing and without considering the stand of the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed, which has violated the principles of natural justice, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. [2025:RJ-JP:31637] (3 of 3) [CW-8518/2025] 6. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the facts that prior to passing of the impugned order dated 09.04.2025, the stand of the petitioner was not taken into account, straightaway the order impugned has been passed, which has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. On this count alone, the order impugned dated 09.04.2025 stands quashed and set-aside and the matter is remitted to the respondents to pass fresh order in the light of the detailed response dated 21.04.2025 submitted by the petitioner to the notice dated 31.01.2025, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /35