[2025:RJ-JP:1342] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15391/2009 M/s. Swastik Crushing Plant Through Its Partner Ratanlal S/o Shri Onkarlal Ji Soni, Ambamata Road, Bhindar Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Udaipur Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary Department Of Mines, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Deputy Secretary Revisional Authority Department Of Mines, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Mining Engineer, Udaipur. 4. Assistant Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vimal Choudhary Mr.Yogesh Kumar Taylor For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rahul Lodha, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Order 09/01/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of orders dated 22.10.2005, 30.05.2007 and 28.10.2009 imposing the penalty, dismissing the appeal and revision respectively. 2. Brief facts are that the petitioner was having a mining lease and running Crusher since 1985. Short term premises were also issued for mining operations. The Department on the basis of a Panchnama prepared during inspection of the site on 21.09.2005 issued a notice and passed an order dated 22.10.2005 imposing a [2025:RJ-JP:1342] (2 of 2) [CW-15391/2009] penalty of Rs.3,20,880/-. The petitioner failed in appeal and revision, hence the present petition. 3. The case set up is that the penalty order is in violation of principles of natural justice against the facts. The contention is that for the same very unauthorized mining a criminal case was registered in which the petitioner has been acquitted. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner failed to respond to the notice and thereafter the penalty order was passed. It is further argued that the criminal proceedings shall not effect imposition of penalty under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. 5. From perusal of the pleadings, it is forthcoming that the penalty order is a non-speaking order, and was passed solely on the basis of the inspection report. It would be appropriate to note that the adverse material available with the Department that is the Panchnama prepared during the inspection was never confronted to the petitioner. Consequence being that the petitioner was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to defend the case in absence of the adverse material having been supplied. 6. The impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.3-Mining Engineer, Udaipur for deciding the issue of penalty afresh. 7. The petition is allowed accordingly. (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/32 Whether Reportable: Yes