[2025:RJ-JP:10038-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 162/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2780/2025 1. M/s Prateek Minerals, 6J(A), Malviya Industrial Area, Jaipur - 302017 Through Its Sole Proprietor Shri Prateek Agarwal Residing At 230, Nemisagar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur- 302021 (Raj.). 2. Prateek Agarwal S/o Shri Shankar Lal Agarwal, Aged About 40 Years, Resident At 230, Nemisagar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur-302021 (Raj.). ----Appellants Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. The Director, Department of Mines And Geology, Govt. of Rajsthan, Khanij Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Rajasthan). 3. The Mining Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Rajasthan, Opposite Hotel Ashoka, Road No. 2, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Appellants : Mr. A.K. Sharma Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Karan Tibrewal Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Judgment 06/03/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. The order passed by the learned Single Judge on 21.02.2025 in the writ petition directed against show cause notice dated 07.01.2025 is under challenge in this appeal. 3. Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants would argue that the learned Single Judge has [2025:RJ-JP:10038-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-162/2025] recorded an erroneous finding on the face of the contents of the show cause notice that the show cause notice has not been issued with any premeditated mind. Learned Senior Advocate, by reading out the contents of the show cause notice dated 07.01.2025, would submit that the detailed show cause notice records satisfaction, conclusive in nature, with regard to irregularities having been committed by the appellants, by relying upon the materials including site inspection report. He would submit that the notice clearly shows that the authority has applied its mind in great details and after deep examination, recorded specific finding regarding irregularities committed by the appellants. Therefore, issuance of show cause notice and obtaining reply is empty formality. On such fact situation, the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Siemens Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, (2006) 12 SCC 33 and ORYX Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Others, (2010) 13 SCC 427 are squarely applicable in the present case. 4. We have gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Learned Single Judge, after going through the contents of the show cause notice, has recorded that the show cause notice is based on site inspection carried at the spot by the respondents. Learned Single Judge has rejected the contention that the site inspection could not have been carried out without notice to the concerned and in the absence to there being any requirement of law. According to learned Single Judge, sudden and surprise inspection could always be carried, if warranted. However, learned Single Judge stopped [2025:RJ-JP:10038-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-162/2025] there by observing that the matter is still pending consideration before the competent authority, therefore, the Court does not wish to delve deep into that aspect. It also records that the appellants have already submitted their response to the show cause notice and the authority is yet to take a decision. 6. We have also gone through the contents of the show cause notice. True it is that the show cause notice is quite detailed one and also refers to site inspection report. Merely because the contents of the show cause notice are detailed one, it could not be made a basis to conclude that the authority has prejudged the issue. It appears that a surprise spot inspection was carried and the report was submitted before the authority. Based on that report, a show cause notice has been issued to the appellants. The occasion to issue show cause notice arose because the contents of the site inspection report are against the appellants. The show cause notice, in terms, does not record any finding as such that the authority has finally accepted the site inspection report. It is only a process of application of mind by the authority as to whether it is a case for issuance of notice to the appellants. Tentative view taken by the authority is only to enable the appellants to submit their objections not only to the contents of the site inspection report but also the manner in which the site inspection report was prepared. 7. Reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Siemens Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others (supra) and ORYX Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Others (supra) are misplaced on facts. In the peculiar circumstances of those cases, on facts, looking into the text and [2025:RJ-JP:10038-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-162/2025] tenor of the show cause notices therein, an opinion was formed that the issue in that case was prejudged. Merely because the authority has applied its mind in great detail before issuance of show cause notice could not be made a basis to say that the issue has been prejudged. Whatever is contained in the show cause notice is only tentative opinion subject to consideration of the objections/reply which the appellants may submit to the show cause notice. Indeed, the manner in which the authority has proceeded shows that issuance of show cause notice is not mechanical, but based on some prima facie material and consideration. 8. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. We must hasten to clarify by way of abundant caution that contents of the notice are mere tentative view subject to objections/reply which have already been filed by the appellants. The authority would be obliged under the law to consider each and every objection before arriving at a conclusion whether any violation has been done by the appellants. The objections to site inspection report are also required to be examined on its own merits and the site inspection report cannot be accepted without consideration of the objections/reply of the appellants. Furthermore, any observations made by learned Single Judge with regard to merits of the case shall not have any effect. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ MANOJ NARWANI