[2025:RJ-JP:31507] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3556/2008 Gopal Vyas son of Shri Rajendra Vyas, aged about 45 years, resident of Karoli, District Karoli (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Deputy Secretary, Mines & Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Additional Director, Mines & Geology, Jaipur Region, Jaipur. 4. Mining Engineer, Karoli ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwani Chobisa with Ms. Priyansha Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha, Addl. GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 13/08/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 12.11.2007 and 25.02.2005 passed by the Deputy Secretary and the Additional Director, Department of Mines respectively. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sanction was issued in favour of the petitioner on 28.12.1998 for running a mining lease. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was supposed to deposit the requisite charges within a period of 45 days but the same was deposited by the petitioner by a delay of 5 days, i.e., on 16.02.1999. Learned counsel submits that, on this count alone, the sanction order issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondents without issuing any notice or [2025:RJ-JP:31507] (2 of 4) [CW-3556/2008] providing any opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the Additional Director, Department of Mines, however, the appeal was partly allowed vide order dated 25.02.2005 and the petitioner has been directed to pay penalty amount @9% per month w.e.f. 28.03.1999 till 30.10.2000. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid order should not have been passed by the First Appellate Authority as there is a proviso under Rule 19(4) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short “the Rules of 1986”), stating that the delay in depositing the amount can be extended, in case, an application is submitted. Learned counsel submits that, in the instant case, there was delay of five days only, hence, the respondents could have condoned the aforesaid delay, but instead of doing so, sanction order issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even after feeling aggrieved by the subsequent order, i.e., the order dated 25.02.2005, the petitioner submitted a second appeal before the Deputy Secretary, Department of Mines, however, the same was also rejected vide impugned order dated 12.11.2007. Learned counsel submits that for a delay of five days, penalty @9% per month could not be imposed on the petitioner. 4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Ram Bishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others reported in 2023 Supreme (Raj) 2282 and Ganpat Lal Sankhla Vs. State of Rajasthan & [2025:RJ-JP:31507] (3 of 4) [CW-3556/2008] Others while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11728/2010 at Principal Seat at Jodhpur. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that when the sanction order was issued in favour of the petitioner, it was clearly stipulated in the order itself that the petitioner was supposed to deposit the required amount within a period of 45 days. Learned counsel submits that the amount in question was deposited by the petitioner after expiry of 45 days and no application seeking condonation of delay was submitted. Hence, under these circumstances, the Additional Director, Department of Mines as well as the Deputy Secretary, Department of Mines have not committed an error in passing the order impugned directing the petitioner to pay penalty @9% w.e.f. 28.03.1999. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that the sanction order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 28.12.1998 with a condition that the petitioner would deposit the required charges within a period of 45 days in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1986. 8. This fact is not in dispute that the required charges was deposited by the petitioner after the expiry of 45 days, i.e., 16.02.1999. 9. As per Clause (4) of Rule 19, if any person fails to deposit the amount within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of [2025:RJ-JP:31507] (4 of 4) [CW-3556/2008] grant of sanction, he can submit an application seeking extension, but in the instant case, no such application was submitted by the petitioner, hence, the proviso attached to Rule 19(4) of the Rules of 1986 comes into picture, which says that if the grantee completes the formalities mentioned under Sub-Rule (1) of the Rule 19 before issuance of the revocation order, penalty @9% could be imposed for every month delay or part thereof. 10. These facts were considered and appreciated by the Additional Director as well as by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Mines and accordingly the order impugned has been passed. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no error in the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority and the Second Appellate Authority, which requires any interference of this Court. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. All applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/58