Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:RJ-JP:9048] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3782/2026 Chander S/o Sh. Khutta, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of Basai Mew, Tehsil-Firojpur Jhirka, District-Mewat Nuh (Haryana). ----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. Directorate Of Mines And Geology Rajasthan, Through The Additional Director, Mines And Geology, Kota Range, Kota (Rajasthan). 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 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 26/02/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned show cause notice dated 12.01.2026, the genesis of which is the inspection dated 07.01.2026 carried out by the respondent-authority. 2. The primary argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice worth the name was issued to the petitioner by the respondents before carrying out the said inspection of his Mining Lease (ML) No. 445/2003 on 07.01.2026 and in absence of any notice, the said inspection cannot be relied
[2026:RJ-JP:9048] (2 of 4) [CW-3782/2026] upon by the respondents for taking any action whatsoever against the petitioner. 3. Mr. Rahul Lodha, learned AGC, appearing on behalf of respondents, at the very outset, submits that the inspection was rightly carried out considering the obtained circumstances and the consequential show cause notice dated 12.01.2025 is very much in accordance with law. 4. With respect to the inspection carried out by the respondent- authority on 07.01.2026, on being confronted with the office order dated 06.03.2025 issued by the respondent-department, learned counsel submits that the said Office Order has to be applied considering the facts obtained, and the petitioner cannot claim issuance of prior notice of inspection as a matter of right. 5. The Office Order, as issued by the Directorate, Mines And Geology Department, on 06.03.2025 reads as under:
"राज˕ान-सरकार िनदेशालय, खान एं व भूिवǒान िवभाग
खिनज भवन
/ KHAND BHAWAN.
उदयपुर / UDAIPUR 313001 दूरभाष / PHONE 0294.2415091-95 फे স / FAX0294.2410526 कमांक : िनदे/प.6/िविध/िविवध/2025/ िदनांक- 06.03.2025 Ůेिषित- समˑ अितौरঢ िनदेशक
(खान), समˑ अधीण खिन अिभयȶा
/ समˑ अधीण खिन अिभयȶा
(सतक१ ता) समˑ खिन अिभयȶा
, / समˑ खिन अिभयȶा
(सतक१ ता), समˑ सहायक खिन अिभयȶा
, / समˑ सहायक खिन अिभयȶा
(सतक१ ता)। िवषय :- खान िनरीण करते समय खनन प ਂेधाौरयों को
सूिचत करने एवं खनन पਂेधारी
/ अवैध खननकता१ को
सुनवाई का अवसर िदए जाने
, नैसिग१क Ɋाय के िसȠाȶ की
पालना बाबत्।
ঋायः यह देखा गया है िक िवभाग के अिधकाौरयों Ȫारा खनन पਂों
का िनरीण करने से पूव१ पਂाधारी को िनरीण की ितिथ
/ सूचना से
अवगत कराऐ िबना ही खानों का िनरीण कर िदया जाता है। नैसिग१क
[2026:RJ-JP:9048] (3 of 4) [CW-3782/2026] Ɋाय के िसȠांतों की पालना म७ खनन पਂाधारीयों को सुनवाई का अवसर
िदया जाना चािहऐ।
खनन पਂाधारी के खान िनरीण करने से पूव१ िनरीण का नोिटस
तामील कराया जाना सुिनिʮत कर७ तथा खनन पਂे का यथा संभव खनन
पਂाधारी / ঋितिनिध की उप्˕ित म७ ही खानों का िनरीण िकया जाएँ
तथा िनरीण उपराȶ पਂाधारी को िविधक नोिटस जारी करते समय
िनरीण ौरपोट१ की ঋित उपलɩ कराव७।
पਂाधारी से जवाब ঋाɑ होने के उपरांत संबंिधत अिधकाौरयों
Ȫारा के वल यह िलखा जाता है िक जवाब अमाɊ है
/ असȶोषঋद है , जो उिचत नहीं है। अतः समुिचत तȚों को शािमल करते ॽए कारण सिहत
˙ीिकं ग आदेश संबंिधत अिधकारी जारी कर७। इसी ঋकार समुिचत
अवसर देने के उपरांत भी पਂाधारी से जवाब ঋाɑ नहीं होने की ्˕ित म७
उঢानुसार तȚों सिहत ˙ीिकं ग आदेश जारी कर७।
अवैध खनन के ঋकरणों म७ औचक िनरीण उपरांत मौका
िनरीण / पंचनामे की ঋित नोिटस के साथ संल্ की जाकर अवैध
खननकता१ को तामील कराई जावे तथा नोिटस का जवाब ঋाɑ होने के
पʮात कारण सिहत ˙ीिकं ग आदेश जारी िकए जाकर जवाब ˢीकार
/ अˢीकार िकया जाकर अथवा समुिचत अवसर देने के उपरांत जवाब
ঋाɑ नहीं होने की ्˕ित म७ िनयमानुसार अिঁम काय१वाही की जावे।
अतः समˑ काया१लयाȯ उपरोঢ ঋिॿया की अरशः पालना
सुिनिʮत कर७ यिद उपयु१ঢ ঋिॿया की पालना िकए िबना कोई काय१वाही
की जाती है तो संबंिधत अिधकारी का उȅरदाियȕ िनधा१ौरत िकया
जावेगा।"
6.
Taking note of the above instructions and without delving into the merits of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the Department itself has issued Office Order providing guidance for carrying out inspections and issuing subsequent notices, if any required, the Department, in an earnest manner, should comply and take guidance from the said instructions. 7. Accordingly, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, the impugned show cause notice dated 12.01.2026 is quashed, though with the liberty that the respondent-authority would be within their jurisdiction to carry out an inspection of the Mining Lease of the petitioner after issuing a notice with regard to the same to him, specifying therein the date of such inspection before
[2026:RJ-JP:9048] (4 of 4) [CW-3782/2026] carrying out the same and would proceed on the basis of the said inspection report strictly in accordance with law. 8. However, it is clarified that neither of the parties would be prejudiced by the quashing of the notice dated 12.01.2026 and so also the present order and the entire exercise would be conducted strictly in accordance with law. 9. It is also directed that as the issue with respect to issuance/non-issuance of notice by the departmental authorities to the lease holders with respect to conducting the inspection is of perennial nature, it would be in the interest of public at large, if a detailed guideline/directives are issued by the respondent- department in this regard. 10. The said instructions should clarify and specify the situations/circumstances, if any, which may require a sudden site inspection to be conducted by the respondent-authority and that whether such inspection would be in the interest of public at large and for ensuring administrative and statutory compliance and may not lead to violation of any of the rights of the lease holder(s). 11. Accordingly, with above directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DIPESH CHAYAL /03