[2025:RJ-JP:28656] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13033/2013 Subhash Agarwal S/o Shri B.p. Agarwal, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 138, Shanti Nagar, Gopalpura Byepass, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Director Mines And Geology, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Mining Engineer, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Assistant Mining Engineer (Recovery), Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 5. Auditor General (Second), Auditor General Office, Secretariat Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 6. Shri Ghanshyam, Audit Officer, Department Of Auditor General, Secretariat Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwani Chobisa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Order 29/07/2025 1. This petition is filed aggrieved of recovery notice dated 13.12.2012 and warrant of attachment dated 21.06.2013 whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.16,71,000/- for unauthorized mining. 2. The brief facts are that on 29.01.1998 petitioner was sanctioned a mining lease No.123/1996 for mineral marble near Village Gadrawada, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa. The assessment of the petitioner was finalized by the mining engineer. An audit [2025:RJ-JP:28656] (2 of 3) [CW-13033/2013] objection was raised stating that it is a case of under assessment. The mining engineer on the basis of an audit objection dated 03.04.2006 directed the petitioner to deposit the amount. On contesting the issue, a committee was constituted on 14.05.2007 to examine the correct facts about the audit objections. A report was submitted and the committee recommended that the production should be estimated on the basis of actual pits. On 07.07.2008 again an audit objection was raised and thereafter recovery notice dated 13.12.2012 was issued. Despite a reply filed that no amount is payable, the proceedings for attachment were initiated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without passing an order creating a demand, recovery proceedings have been initiated. Reliance has been placed upon decision of this Court in SBCWP No.20697/2019 Manda Developers & Builders Private Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan dated 02.12.2023 . 4. Learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings with their able assistance. 6. It is evident that the notice for recovery has been issued relying upon the audit objection. The law is well settled that recovery notice cannot be issued without being backed by an order passed by the competent authority creating a demand. In absence of any order creating a demand having been passed, the recovery proceedings cannot be allowed to continue. The impugned notice and the attachment proceedings in pursuance thereto are set aside. [2025:RJ-JP:28656] (3 of 3) [CW-13033/2013] 7. The writ petition is allowed. 8. Needless to say the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J RIYA/42