KOTHARI, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Jabbar Singh, challenging the impugned demand notice Annex.3 dated 28.03.2011, by which the respondent- Mining Engineer, Udaipur, called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 14,59,785/- within 15 days towards the revised dead rent in respect of Mining Lease No. 149/83 on the basis of audit objection raised by the audit team of the Accountant General (respondent No.2 herein) for the year 2007-08. A copy of audit memo was also supplied to the petitioner along with said communication dated 28.03.2011.
(2.) THE petitioner has fled this writ petition on 13.04.2011 challenging the said communication calling it to be a demand notice and prayed for quashing of the same. The another prayer made in the writ petition is that it may be held that no revision of dead rent fell due in 1999 and 2004 and no such revision was permissible in view of 3rd proviso of Rule 18 (3) of the Rajasthan Mines & Minerals Concession Rules, 1986 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1986'). While admitting the present writ petition, a coordinate bench of this Court on 19.04.2011 granted an ad-interim stay order in favour of petitioner restraining the respondents from adopting any coercive proceedings for recovery against the petitioner in pursuance of the notice dated 28.03.2011 (Annex.3). The respondent No.2-Accountant General has filed separate reply to the writ petition and, the Mining Department (respondent No. 1 and 3) have also filed reply to the writ petition. Mr. D.D. Thanvi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned demand of revised dead rent of Rs. 14,59,785/- could not be straightway raised against the petitioner on the basis of audit objection raised by the Audit Department (Accountant General) and further such demand could not be raised against the petitioner without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He also urged that revision of dead j rent made under the impugned communication dated 28.03.2011 on the basis of audit objection amounts to retrospective revision of dead rent and since the royalty paid on the excavation of minerals by the petitioner is adjustable against the dead rent i.e. the minimum guaranteed amount of royalty for the mining lease in question, therefore, such a demand required to be paid in the year 2011 for the purported revision of dead rent, which ought to have been made by the Mining Department in the years 1999 and 2004, and, therefore, the same amounts to a retrospective levy on the petitioner, which is not permissible in the law. He, therefore, urged that the impugned demand notice Annex.3 dated 28.03.2011 deserves to be quashed.
(3.) A brief look into the relevant facts for grant of Mining Lease No. 149/83 to the petitioner is necessary. The mining lease in question initially was granted for ten years for the period 31.01.1984 to 31.01.1994 in favour of one Sh. Subhash Chandra Mor, who, however, transferred the said lease in favour of present petitioner, Jabbar Singh on 04.09.1989 and a transfer-deed was executed by the Mining Department in his favour. The area of the mining lease in question originally was only 11, 250 square meters. An additional area of 5400 square meters in the gap area adjacent to petitioner's mining lease, was auctioned in favour of petitioner, which auction was held for determination of dead rent for such an additional area by open bids and the petitioner having given the highest bid for that of Rs.2,52,000/- per annum, the petitioner was, accordingly, given such additional mining area of 5400 square meters, making the total area of the lease to 16650 square meters (11250 + 5400) with effect from 01.07, 1997. During the renewal period between (31.01.994 to 30.01.2004) for the total area of 16650 square meters, the dead rent was determined accordingly at Rs.2,52,234/-. A supplementary contract was executed between the petitioner and the Mining Engineer, Udaipur vide Annex.2 for a period of ten yean i.e. from 31.01.2004 to 30.01.2014. The details of earlier period and orders were also made in the said supplementary contract also.;