JUDGMENT 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. 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. 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. 4. Rule 71 provides for service of such notice. A provision has been made in Rule 69 in the exigencies, if such trader fails to produce record for mineral purchased by him, the assessing authority may enter into any place where mineral is stored and, measure or count it and assess cost of mineral which shall be recovered from the trader. Rule 69 of the Rules is as under "6.9 Power to summon : (1) The assessing authority for the observance of these rules and for 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 and 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 recoverable as the case may be. (2) Any person who is engaged in trading of minerals shall maintain a correct account of mineral purchased stocked and sold by him and these records shall be produced for inspection if required by assessing authority or a person authority in this behalf : Provided that if such trader fails to produce record for mineral purchased by him, the assessing authority may enter into any place where the mineral is stored and, measure or count it and assess cost of mineral which shall be recovered from the trader." 5. Rule 48 of the rules provides penalty for offences and prosecutions and says that no person shall undertake any mining operations, except in accordance with the terms and conditions of the mining lease, quarry license etc. It is stated on behalf of the counsel for the respondents that under proviso to sub-rule 5 of Rule 48, the assessing authority was authorised to assess and also to impose penalty. Relevant rule 48 is as under : "48. Unauthorised working (1) No person shall undertake any mining operations except accordance with the terms and conditions of the mining lease, quarry license, short term permit or any other permission granted,under these rules. (2) The lessee or any other person shall not remove or de spatch mineral from the mines and quarries without rawanna for the lease hold area in Form No. 12 and duly sealed by the department. (3) --------------- (4) -------------- (5) Whenever any person without a lawful authority or in contravention of the terms and conditions of the mining lease/quarry license, short term permit or any other permit raised any mineral from any land and for that purpose bring on the land any tool, equipment, vehicle or other thing such mineral, tool, vehicle or other thing be seized by the authorities mentioned in sub- rule (4). Provided that where mineral so raised has already been de spatched or consumed, the authorities mentioned in sub-rule (4) may recover cost of the mineral alongwith rent, royalty or the chargeable on land occupied or mineral excavated which will be computed as (10) times the royalty at the prevalent rent : Provided further that every officer seizing any property or mineral under this rule shall give a receipt of the property so seized to the person from whom possession the property or mineral is so seized and make a report of such seizure to his superior officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area to try offence." 6. It is admitted fact and it is so admitted at the Bar that whosoever is engaged in the mining operation, cannot allow the lifting of the mineral unless a rawanna is prepared for the purpose of assessing the royalty and the person engaged in mining operation is supposed to pay royalty when the material is lifted and Rawana is prepared. The royalty is to be paid by the lease holder who is duly authorised to operate the mine. If any mineral is lifted without rawanna or is allowed to be lifted without rawanna, the person who so allows the material to be lifted is punishable under Rule 48 of the Rules. If this is the situation, the provision of Rule 48 will come into play as against all those assessees who operate mines and do not pay the royalty and allow the material to be lifted. In case it is found on inquiries made that any such lapse has been allowed by any person under sub rule 5 of proviso 48 of the rules and he is liable to be punished by way of penalty. 7. In the present case, it is admitted fact that the petitioner had, obtained a contract to supply the gitties to the Railways. Case of the petitioner is that he had lifted the gitties from one Bhanwardass who was operating the mine. 7. In the present case, it is admitted fact that the petitioner had, obtained a contract to supply the gitties to the Railways. Case of the petitioner is that he had lifted the gitties from one Bhanwardass who was operating the mine. Even if certain quarries had been made from the respondent-Bhanwardass, admittedly the petitioner was not associated with any such notice of such inquiries and it has not been brought on record nor it is revealed from the record produced by the respondents in the Court that before levying the royalty and the ten times penalty by way of punishment, the petitioner was not issued any show cause notice and straight-way the i impugned order was passed. The respondents may be within their rights to act according to the law for the purpose of recovering the escaped royalty but the principle of natural justice do require that before passing the final order which includes penalty as well which is penal in character the least respondents ought to have done was to apprise the petitioner to the effect i that they had made certain inquiries and the petitioner ought to have been asked to explain and reply which admittedly had not been done in the present case. The respondents straight-way passed the order of attachment for an amount of Rs.84,000/- for the alleged evasion of royalty of Rs.8,400/-. May be, if the petitioner might have been told such position, he could have proved his innocence. No person can be penalised without affording him a fair opportunity. It is true that if an assessee is to pay the royalty he is bound to comply with such obligations but it can also not be ignored that before passing an order of assessment or penalty, the respondents if on any material or material evidence, documents or any inquiry made at their s instance, must associate and inform such an assessee of such material and evidence against him which had not been done in the present case and as such the order Annex. 4 or any other subsequent order passed in consequence to Annex. 4 cannot sustained in the eyes of law. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, order Annex. 4 is quashed. 4 or any other subsequent order passed in consequence to Annex. 4 cannot sustained in the eyes of law. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, order Annex. 4 is quashed. However, it is made clear that in case the respondents are so advised, they are at liberty to act in accordance with law and if any notice is issued to the petitioner to explain the source of lifting the material, the petitioner shall be duty bound to satisfy the respondents about his innocence. 9. With the above said observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.Writ Petition allowed. *******