JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the Judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the demand of Rs. 77,88,150/- as penalty against the appellant was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (for short as 'RSMDC') entered into an agreement with the appellant with respect to 10 plots for undertaking mining operations on 11.7.85. In pursuance of the said agreement, the appellant started mining operations. It appears that on 19.11.96, the area where the appellant was carrying on its mining operations was inspected and the respondents alleged that appellant was found to be guilty for illegal mining activities in plots No. 24 and 32 which were not part of the area allotted to the appellant. A Panch-name was prepared on the said date about the proceedings that took place. The said panch-name was followed by a show-cause notice issued by the respondents against the appellant. It was alleged in the show-cause notice that appellant had carried out unauthorized mining activities in plots no. 24 and 32 and had unauthorisedly extracted 7788.15 matric tones of minerals from these plots and calculated the penalty 10 times amount sought to be levied as penalty on the appellant amounting to Rs. 77,88,150/- as mentioned in said notice. The appellant was given 15 days' time to reply to the said show cause notice. It is the case of the appellant that representative of the appellant met the respondents on 25.11.96 to explain the position. A reply dated 30.11.96 is said to have been sent by the appellant to the said show cause notice in which the appellant denied having carried out any unauthorised mining activities as alleged in the show cause notice. The appellant also denied that any of its representative was present at the time of preparation of panchnama. It may be mentioned here that in the panchama, name of one Sh. Tiwari is mentioned as representative of the appellant at the site. The appellant in the reply denied the presence of any of its representative at the time of preparation of panchnama. The appellant further asked for joint survey/inspection of the area in order to verify the correctness of allegations made against the appellant in the show cause notice. Tiwari is mentioned as representative of the appellant at the site. The appellant in the reply denied the presence of any of its representative at the time of preparation of panchnama. The appellant further asked for joint survey/inspection of the area in order to verify the correctness of allegations made against the appellant in the show cause notice. The appellant prayed that a convenient date and time for this purpose may be fixed. The respondents passed an order dated 21.12.1996 calling upon the appellant to pay the said amount within a period of 15 days, failing which the same was to be recovered as arrears under the Land Revenue Act. it appears that since the appellant had requested for joint survey, on 18/97 the respondent No. 2 sent a letter informing the appellant that inspection of plot Nos. 24 and 32 would be conducted on 29.1.97. The appellant was required to send its authorised representative at site on the date fixed. This inspection appears to have not been carried out. The respondents fixed another date for joint inspection vide letter dated 28.6.97. By the said letter, inspection was scheduled to be conducted at site on 3.7.97. It is the case of the appellant that this letter was never received by the appellant in time. As a matter of fact, according to appellant, this letter was delivered to its representative on 5.7.97 by hand when the representative had visited the office of the respondents. A specific averment has been made in the writ petition about non-delivery of this letter in time and the respondents have given a vague answer to the said specific averment of the appellant. It is clear from this that the appellant had not received timely intimation about the inspection scheduled to be held on 3.7.97. 3. On 31.7.97, the respondent No. 2 passed another order imposting the penalty of Rs. 77,88,150/- after recording the fact that appellant's representative was present at the time of inspection of on 3.7.97. A reference to this letter shows that the person who was said to be present on the date of inspection, was not really a representative of appellant. The relevant lines are as under : " Jh bZ'k ik.Ms us crk;k fd ;g vukf/kd'r [kuu dk;Z loZ Jh esokM+ ekcZy fyfeVsM }kjk djk;k x;k gS] ,oa foHkkx }kjk ;g IykV vU; dks Lohd'r fd;k x;k gS]------ " 4. Sh. The relevant lines are as under : " Jh bZ'k ik.Ms us crk;k fd ;g vukf/kd'r [kuu dk;Z loZ Jh esokM+ ekcZy fyfeVsM }kjk djk;k x;k gS] ,oa foHkkx }kjk ;g IykV vU; dks Lohd'r fd;k x;k gS]------ " 4. Sh. Ish Pandey was said to be representative of M/s. Mewar Marbles Ltd. and from the above lines narrated by us, it is clear that Ish Pandey could not be a representative of appellant because Sh. Pandey was making allegation about unauthorised mining activities by the appellant. If Sh. Pandey was appellant's representative, he would not be making a statement against its own company. Lateron respondents have accepted the fact that Sh. Pandey was not the representative of appellant. However, the respondents have stuck to their own stand that representative of appellant was present at the time of inspection of 3.7.97 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 77,88,150/- has been reiterated. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the action of respondents on three grounds i.e. (i) the respondents fixed a joint inspection, however they did not provide opportunity to the appellant to remain present at site; (ii) there is no basis for calculation of the amount of penalty nor enquiry as envisaged under the Rajasthan Minor & Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 was held and the amount determined by way of penalty is totally without any basis; (iii) it is a case of non-application of mind so far as issuance of order dated 31.7.97 imposing penalty of Rs. 77,88,150/- is concerned. 6. So far as first point raised by appellant is concerned, it is clearly established from the record that no opportunity was afforded to the appellant to be present at site at the time of joint inspection on 3.7.97 as ordered by the respondents themselves. The intimation about the date of joint inspection was not given to the appellant in time. The respondents have failed to show that they had informed the appellant about the date and time of inspection in advance. The respondents have rather proceeded on an erroneous basis while passing the order dated 31.7.97. The have taken one Ish Pandey as representative of appellant who, it appears, was present at the site at the time of inspection. From the order itself, it is clear that Ish Pandey was not representative of appellant, but was an allottee of plots No. 24 and 32. The have taken one Ish Pandey as representative of appellant who, it appears, was present at the site at the time of inspection. From the order itself, it is clear that Ish Pandey was not representative of appellant, but was an allottee of plots No. 24 and 32. This also establishes non-application of mind on, the part of respondents while passing the order dated 31.7.97. The order dated 31.7.97 contains enough material to show that respondents were taking contradictory stand which is an evidence of non- application of mind on their part. 7. Coming to the second point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order does not disclose any basis for calculation of amount imposed by way of penalty, we are of the view that submission made on behalf of counsel for the appellant is correct. According to the order, 7788.15 matric tone is the figure of alleged illegally mined material. How from this figure, the figure of Rs. 77,88,150/- is arrived at, is not disclosed. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is a Schedule annexed to the Rules which gives the basis for calculation. The learned counsel for the respondents may be able to show from the Rules the basis of calculation, however, it is settled law that show cause notice should be intelligible enough to convey to the party who is required to answer the show cause notice. What is the case against it. The show cause notice should be self-contained and should spell out the case against the notice. In this case, the notice is vague as it does not disclose any basis for arriving at any figure of Rs. 77,88,150/-. 8. A reference was invited by the learned counsel for the appellant to the Rules of 48 & 53 and 54 of the Rajasthan Minor & Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 in order to urge that these 'rules envisage an enquiry on the part of respondents for levying penalty but no enquiry was held. Thereby the counsel suggests that it was clearly a case of non-observance of relevant rules. Learned counsel for the respondents was unable to show that any enquiry was held as per rules for the purpose of determining the amount of penalty. The appeal succeeds on all the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Learned counsel for the respondents was unable to show that any enquiry was held as per rules for the purpose of determining the amount of penalty. The appeal succeeds on all the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned demand contained in notices Annex. 3 and 7 is hereby quashed. If the respondents want to proceed further in the matter, they will be at liberty to take fresh action in accordance with law. No order as to costs.Appeal allowed - Demand quashed. *******