[2025:RJ-JP:35975] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13536/2025 M/s Roop Crusher, Through Power Of Attorney Holder Rajat Jain, Son Of Shri Vijay Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, Resident of 702, Shastri Nagar, Dadabadi, District Kota (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Additional Director, Mines, Kota Zone, Kota, Department of Mines and Geology, Mines, Khanij Bhawan, Plot No. 3, Tagore Nagar, Rawatbhata Road, Kota. 3. Superintending Mining Engineer, Kota Zone, Kota, Department of Mines and Geology, Mines Khanij Bhawan, Plot No. 3, Tagore Nagar, Rawatbhata Road, Kota. 4. Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Plot No. 3, Tagore Nagar, Rawatbhata Road, Kota. 5. Mining Engineer (Recovery), Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Plot No.3, Tagore Nagar, Rawatbhata Road, Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chobisa with Ms. Priyanshi Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha-AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/09/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 17.02.2022 passed by the Additional Director (Mines), Kota by which the appeal preferred by the [2025:RJ-JP:35975] (2 of 3) [CW-13536/2025] petitioner against the order dated 24.01.2020 passed by the Mining Engineer, Kota has been rejected. 2. By passing the impugned order dated 24.01.2020 certain penalties have been imposed upon the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 24.01.2020 has not been decided by the Appellate Authority i.e. Additional Director (Mines) on its merits but the same has been rejected on a technical count that a civil suit has been preferred by the petitioner with regard to the same controversy before the Court of Civil Judge, Kota (North) and only on this count alone, treating the appeal by following the principle of res judicata, the same has been rejected. Counsel submits that the prayer made in the suit was altogether different which was made in the appeal. Counsel submits that a suit was filed against the orders by which the e- ravanna/royalty/transit pass of the petitioner was withheld by the Department, hence the controversy came before the Civil Court and the Appellate Authority was altogether different but the Appellate Court has committed an error in rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide impugned order dated 17.02.2020, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent- department opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 5. Considering the arguments put forward by counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the prayer made in the suit [2025:RJ-JP:35975] (3 of 3) [CW-13536/2025] as well as the prayer in the appeal preferred by the petitioner is altogether different. The suit was filed against the orders by which the e-ravanna/royalty/transit pass of the petitioner was withheld while in appeal the order passed by the Mining Engineer was challenged. Hence under these circumstances, the Appellate Court misread the prayer of the suit and has erred in rejecting the appeal on a technical count instead of deciding the same on its merits. On this count alone, the impugned order dated 17.02.2022 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. 6. The present writ petition stands disposed of with direction to the Appellate Authority i.e. Additional Director (Mines) to re- register the appeal on its original number and decide the same on its merit expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. 7. In case, any stay application is preferred by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority would decide the same strictly in accordance with law. 8. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/33