[2025:RJ-JP:17879] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15116/2024 Kapil Jain S/o Shri Shailendra Jain, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Near Jain Mandir, Jurhera, Tehsil Kaman, District Bharatpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Mines And Petroleum, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur (Raj.). 3. Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Bharatpur (Raj.). 4. Shri Ram Niwas Mangal, Erstwhile Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Bharatpur (Raj.), Presently Posted As Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Kota (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anurag Sharma Mr. Harsh Sharma Mr. Anoop Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG assisted by Mr. Kapil Vyas Ms. Niti Jain Bhandari JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 26.07.2024 passed by Assistant Mining Engineer, Bharatpur based on a show cause notice dated 19.02.2024 and the site inspection report dated 07.02.2024. [2025:RJ-JP:17879] (2 of 4) [CW-15116/2024] 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the site was inspected by one of the members of the committee, i.e., Mr. R.N. Mangal against whom an order was passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in earlier round of litigation in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.603/2022. Learned counsel submits that while deciding the aforesaid writ petition, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has restrained Mr. R.N. Mangal to adjudicate the case. Learned counsel submits that Mr. R.N. Mangal, Mining Engineer, Bharatpur was further directed to remain cautious and strictly comply the order passed by this Court and not to repeat the same error in future. Learned counsel submits that violating the aforesaid order again, the inspection was done by him on 07.02.2024 along-with other members and on the basis of the aforesaid site inspection report, a show cause notice was issued and impugned recovery orders have been issued against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State-respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that Mining Engineer was not restrained to make any site inspection rather he was restrained to adjudicate the matter and in the instant case, the matter has been adjudicated on the basis of report on 26.07.2024 by one-Khetan Prakash, Assistant Mining Engineer. Learned counsel submits that the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by Assistant Mining Engineer is appealable under Rule 63 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2017”), but without availing the alternative statutory remedy, the [2025:RJ-JP:17879] (3 of 4) [CW-15116/2024] petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Learned counsel submits that the writ petition is liable to be rejected on this count alone. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the Assistant Mining Engineer is appealable under Rule 63 of the Rules of 2017, but without availing the alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has straightway approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition. 6. It is settled proposition of law that whenever alternative efficacious statutory remedy of filing an appeal is available to a person, he cannot be allowed to bypass the jurisdiction of Appellate Authority. 7. On this count alone, the writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file statutory appeal against the order dated 26.07.2024 before the Appellate Authority. 8. In case, any appeal is submitted by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority within a period of one month from today, the Appellate Authority is expected to hear and decide the same on its merits after affording opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties, expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of three months thereafter, ignoring the period of limitation and in case, any stay application along-with appeal is submitted by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority is expected to hear and decide the same within a period of seven days thereafter. [2025:RJ-JP:17879] (4 of 4) [CW-15116/2024] 9. It goes without saying that the petitioner would be at liberty to take all available grounds before the Appellate Authority, which have been taken before this Court and it is expected from the authority concerned to deal with the grounds in accordance with law. 10. Stay application and all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/192