[2025:RJ-JP:17272-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 60/2025 1. Kanthi Kumar Agarwal, son of late Shri Mahaveer Prasad Agarwal, resident of 76-A, Kastoorba Nagar, Meera Marg, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) (Died) through legal representatives - 1/1. Sushila Agarwal, wife of late Shri Kanthi Kumar Agarwal, aged about 53 Years, resident of 76-A, Kastoorba Nagar, Meera Marg, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 1/2. Ankit Agarwal, son of late Shri Kanthi Kumar Agarwal, aged about 38 Years, resident of 76-A, Kastoorba Nagar, Meera Marg, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 1/3. Neha Jain, daughter of late Shri Kanthi Kumar Agarwal, wife of Shri Anuj Jain, aged about 36 Years, resident of 121-A Mahesh Colony, Near J.P. underpass, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 1/4. Aditi Agarwal, daughter of late Shri Kanthi Kumar Agarwal, wife of Shri Ankit Gupta, aged about 34 Years, resident of 906, Gopalan Lake Front, Veer Sandra, Bangalore ----Petitioners-Appellants Versus 1. Union Of India, through Secretary, Department Of Mines, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 2. State Of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Director, Mines And Geology, Udaipur 4. Mining Engineer, Sikar ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chobisa, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anima Chaturvedi, Advocate for Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG Mr. Manish Acharya, Advocate for Mr. Pawan Pareek, Advocate [2025:RJ-JP:17272-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-60/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 24/04/2025 This Special Appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 17th September 2024 passed by the writ Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.508/2011. 2. Before the writ Court, the order dated 1st September 2005 passed by the Director, Mines and Geology, Udaipur and the order dated 9th September 2010 passed by the Revisional Authority were challenged by the original applicant, namely, Kanthi Kumar Agarwal. 3. The writ Court did not interfere with the orders dated 1st September 2005 and 9th September 2010 observing as under:- "6. On perusal of the notice dated 07.12.2024, it is forthcoming that the petitioner was not only granted opportunity to remove deficiencies but also an opportunity of hearing in case of non-removal of deficiencies or if the defects had already been removed. 7. The another aspect to be considered is even before the Revisional Authority or before this Court is not a stand of the petitioner that the deficiencies have even now been removed. In such circumstances, issue that a separate notice for grant of opportunity of hearing should have been issued has been rendered academic. 8. The factual stand that the notice was not served to the petitioner, was rightly rejected by the Revisional Authority. In absence of a case set-up that there was a compliance of notice or prejudice has been caused by giving a single notice providing an opportunity of hearing and for removing the deficiencies, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter." [2025:RJ-JP:17272-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-60/2025] 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants draws our attention to Rule 26 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 to contend that the procedure prescribed therein was not followed and, an opportunity of second hearing was not granted to the original applicant, namely, Kanthi Kumar Agarwal. 5. In the first place, we would indicate that after the new regime for grant of mining lease has come in force, the original applications filed for mining lease must lapse. Secondly, after a lapse of two decades it would be improper to grant indulgence in the matter on a mere showing that certain provisions in the statutory rules were not followed. Just to indicate, a writ shall not be issued on mere making out of an arguable case. 6. In view of foregoing reasons, D.B. Special Appeal No. 60 of 2025 is dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J CHANDAN /17