J.C. Verma, J. - (1.) The petitioner is carrying on the business in the name and style of M/s. Verma Construction Company. The petitioner was given a contract to supply 5,600 Tonnes of gitties to the Railways vide letter dated 19th June 1986. The formal contract with the Railways is said to have been executed on 30th June 1986 vide Annex. 3. The petitioner completed his contract and . supplied the Gitties to the Railways in the year 1986 itself. The petitioner submits that he received the letter dated 22nd July, 1986, copy of which is attached as Annex. 4 to the writ petition wherein he was summoned in the office of Assistant Mining Engineer, Jhalawar with all the available record in regard to the mines or contracts in possession of the petitioner. However, in Annex. 4, no details have been given by the authority concerned as to why and on what basis the letter Annex. 4 was written, nor it was mentioned in Annex. 4 that the authorities wanted to make certain inquiries in regard to the contract, which have been given to the petitioner for supply of Gitties to the Railways. The letter Annex. 4 is said to have been received on 1.8.1986. The petitioner vide had informed the Assistant Mining Engineer, Jhalawar, that they had not excavated any quarry nor they were engaged in the business of mines or quarrying. It was submitted by the petitioner that they had paid the royalties as required under law. As a matter of fact the case of the petitioner was that whatever material they had supplied to the Railways was purchased by the petitioner from authorised lease-holders who had paid the royalties as required under the Act or Rules. It is stated by the petitioner that he had written another letter Annex. 6 attached to the writ petition. It is alleged by the petitioner that nothing was heard after submitting letters Annex. 5 and 6 but all of a sudden vide the impugned order dated 2nd Feb. 1987, the respondent-Assistant Mining Engineer, Jhalawar, had informed the Railway authorities to the effect that because of the royalty to the extent of Rs.8,400/ which should have been paid by the petitioner, but had not been paid and nor reasons have been explained, therefore, the amount of Rs.84,000/- i.e. ten times of the royalty as a penalty for not explaining, is to be recovered from the petitioner and it was ordered that the attachment be made of the amount which was payable to the petitioner by the Railways. After issuing the order of recovery and imposing the penalty, another letter dated 23rd Feb., 1987, copy of which has been attached as Annex. 9, had also been issued to the petitioner with a request to the petitioner to show the record to one Shri Ghaneshwar Rao, a Senior Mines Foreman, who was directed to visit the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the above said letter Annex. 9 by way of Annex. 10 on the same day showing his inability to produce the record because of the reason that the record was lying at Jaipur. The petitioner reiterated his stand vide another letter Annex. 11.
(2.) Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the plea of the petitioner in regard to the purchase of the material from one Shri Bhanwar Dass was not proved to be correct for the reason that the lease of Shri Bhanwar Dass stood already terminated w.e.f. 23rd Nov. 1978. Said Shri Bhanwardass is to have submitted the record for assessment of royalty on 27th Nov., 1978 containing the Rawannas as well the production register. The respondent seems to have made certain inquiry of his own and basing the decision of those certain inquiry, had issued an attachment order on 2.2.1987. However, it is admitted fact that whatever the inquiries had been made by the respondent for reaching to the conclusion of not having paid the royalty on the material supplied by the petitioner to the Railways, the petitioner was never associated in such inquiry by issuing any notice to the petitioner, nor any notice was issued by the respondent to the petitioner to show cause as to why the penalty of ten times amount of the amount due be not imposed on the petitioner.
(3.) Rule 69 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1986, empowers to the assessing authority for the observance of these rules and for the reasons to be recorded may summon any of the parties using and or dealing in the mineral in the state and may demand necessary information and sources from where the mineral has been procured. It is further mentioned that the assessing authority may also depute any official by a general or special order in writing to collect such information and thereafter assess the royalty or the cost of mineral.;