- (1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the interim order dated 16-3-2012 passed by the Director (RM), Ministry of Mines in a Revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20-12-2011 passed by the Mining Engineer Sikar levying a penalty of Rs.26,07,360/- on the petitioner under Rule 48 (5) of the Mines and Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 for the alleged illegal mining of the mineral Silica Sand.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the stay application filed along with the revision petition has been dismissed without any application of mind and without taking into consideration the petitioner's prima facie case in revision and the consequent balance of convenience and irreparable loss to petitioner in the event the order dated 20-12-2011 passed by the Mining Engineer Sikar were not stayed. Counsel submits that the demand against the petitioner under order dated 20-12-2011 passed by the Mining Engineer was raised on the basis of mere allegation of illegal mining contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the Division Bench of this court, in the case of Mewar Marbles Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan [2002 W.L.C. (Raj.) UC 213], has held that notice of demand for alleged illegal mining based on a mere site inspection made without any notice for site inspection to the delinquent mine owner tantamounted to contravention of principles of natural justice, vitiating the entire demand. Counsel submits that even though the aforesaid judgment was rendered in respect of Rajasthan Minor & Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, yet the principle enunciated in the case of Mewar Marbles Ltd. (supra) applies with equal force even to a case relating to Major Minerals under Section 21 (5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (herein after "the 1957 Act'). Counsel submits that Section 21 (5) of the 1957 Act and Rule 48 (5) of the Rajasthan Minor & Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 are para-materia and the principle enunciated in Mewar Marbles (supra) will govern an illegal demand without notice of site inspection and compliance of natural justice in respect of major minerals. Mr. Zakir Hussain, counsel for the respondents would submit that this court ought not exercise its jurisdiction against an interim order. He relied upon a judgment of this court in the case of M/s. Balaji Stone Crusher Company Vs. State of Rajasthan [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14436/2011] decided on 17-10-2011. He submits that the said order dated 17-10-2011 has been upheld by the Division Bench vide order dated 4-11-2011 (D.B. Special Appeal (W) No.1867/2011). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record of writ petition. As far as the judgment in case of M/s.Balaji Stone Crusher Company (supra) is concerned even while declining to interfere with the interim order in that case the court held that unless the judicial discretion in the passing of interim orders has been arbitrarily exercised or exercised for collateral reasons, it is ordinarily not for the writ court to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the concerned court/ authority. The legal position thus stated was that unless an interim order is arbitrarily passed, no interference therewith should be made by the superior court.
(3.) HOWEVER, in the present case a bare look at the impugned order dated 16-3-2012 shows that the stay application has been rejected without any reason being advanced therefor. The Revising Authority has not addressed the grounds of the petitioner in support of the stay application, more particularly the petitioner's contention that the entire demand against the petitioner on account of penalty for alleged unauthorised mining by the Mining Engineer under order dated 20-12-2011 was created in contravention of the principles of natural justice. In my considered opinion allegation of the denial of principles of natural justice as contended by the petitioner and uncontroverted would be a strong ground which would have warranted consideration and address by the revising Authority and non-address of such a ground would definitely be arbitrary and unfair. The case of the petitioner is fortified by the judgment of this court in case of Mewar Marbles Ltd. (supra) decided on 9-1-2002, wherein penalty levied under Rule 48 (5) of MMCR 1986 without complying with the principles of natural justice and joint site inspection after due notice was held to be illegal and quashed. The provisions of the Rule 48 (5) of the Rajasthan Minor & Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 are para-materia with Section 21 (5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and a judgment in one statute will attract to decision making by courts in the other statute. Consequently, I would dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Revising Authority, Director (RM) Mining Department to decide the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20-12-2011 passed by the Mining Engineer Sikar within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. During pendency of the revision petition no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner for recovery of amount in issue. However, till the disposal of the revision petition, the properties of petitioner would remain attached in pursuance to the order of attachment issued by the Assistant Mining Engineer (Recovery) Mines and Geology Department under his notice dated 31-3-2012. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Stay application also stands disposed of. ;