[2025:RJ-JP:36577] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13715/2025 Sahti W/o Late Sh. Rujdar Khan, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village Chinawada, Tehsil-Pahadi, District-Deeg (Rajasthan) Through Her Power Of Attorney Holder Sh. Hasam Khan S/o Sh. Rujdar Khan, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Chinawada, Tehsil-Pahadi, District-Deeg (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Directorate Of Mines And Geology Rajasthan, Through The Additional Director, Mines And Geology, Kota Range, Kota. 3. Department Of Mines And Geology-Bharatpur Circle, Through The Supdt. Mining Engineer Bharatpur, Situated At Khanij Bhawan, Bharatpur (Rajasthan). 4. Department Of Mines And Geology-Bharatpur, Through The Mining Engineer Bharatpur, Situated At Khanij Bhawan, Bharatpur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. David Mehla JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/09/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the respondents by which a demand order has been passed against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to passing of the impugned order, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner on 24.06.2025 with the allegation that the petitioner [2025:RJ-JP:36577] (2 of 3) [CW-13715/2025] was committing illegal mining activities. Learned counsel submits that a detailed reply to the aforesaid show cause notice was sent by registered post on 24.07.2025 and the same was received in the office of the respondents on 30.07.2025. Learned counsel submits that the postal slip and the track receipt has been submitted in this regard, which indicates that the aforesaid exercise was done by the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order, but without paying any heed to the reply submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed only on the count that no reply to the notice dated 24.06.2025 was submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid order amounts to non-application of mind as the same has been passed without considering the reply of the petitioner, which is not a tenable ground, i.e., non-filing of reply, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.06.2025 with the allegation that the petitioner was committing some illegal mining activities. The record indicates that a detailed reply to the aforesaid notice was sent by the petitioner by a registered post on 24.07.2025 and the same was received by the respondents on 30.07.2025, but without considering the reply furnished by the petitioner, the order impugned has been passed on a ground which is not tenable, i.e., non-filing of reply by the petitioner. Since the reply was submitted by the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order and without considering the same, the impugned order has been [2025:RJ-JP:36577] (3 of 3) [CW-13715/2025] passed ex-parte which has resulted in utter violation of principles of natural justice. 5. On this count alone, the impugned order passed by the respondents is not tenable and is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set-aside. The matter is remitted to the respondents for passing fresh order pursuant to the show cause notice dated 24.06.2025 after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. 6. Needless to observe that a fresh order would be passed by the respondents after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 7. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/30