JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the recovery proceedings of alleged penalty by way of 10 times of the royalty amount in total amounting to Rs.64,80,000/- allegedly due from her husband late Shri Gopal Gurjar. The Mining Engineer II, Rajsamand by his impugned communication Annex.3 dated 28.2.2005 informed the petitioner Smt. Laxmi Bai Gurjar that since she is the sole surviving successor of the movable and immovable property of her husband, therefore, she was in law bound to pay the said amount which was due from her husband on account of alleged illegal mining done by him of lime stone and, therefore, the aforesaid penalty of 10 times of royalty of Rs.64,80,000/- was recoverable from her. 3. Being aggrieved of the said recovery notice, the petitioner approached this Court and before coming to this Court, she had given a representation on 25.2.2005 vide Annex.2 to the said authority that she should be made aware of the details of the demand which was raised against her and proposed to be recovered from her on account of alleged illegal mining work done by her husband and that she was not aware of any details of any such demand. 4. A reply has been filed to the writ petition but in the said reply neither any such order determining such demand has been placed on record nor it appears from the said reply that the petitioner or even her husband Shri Gopal Gurjar, who unfortunately expired, was heard in the matter before raising the said demand. Said Shri Gopal Gurjar had mining lease for excavation of mining stone at Rajsamand. 5. It appears that the said demand has been sought to be recovered from the petitioner without determining the said amount or without passing any assessment order as required under Rule 38 of the MMCR, 1986 and without giving any show cause notice to the petitioner. The authority concerned i.e. Mining Engineer was expected in law to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or her husband, the lessee, during the relevant period before raising the said demand and seeking to recover the same from the present petitioner, the widow of the said lessee Shri Gopal Gurjar. 6. The authority concerned i.e. Mining Engineer was expected in law to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or her husband, the lessee, during the relevant period before raising the said demand and seeking to recover the same from the present petitioner, the widow of the said lessee Shri Gopal Gurjar. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned recovery notice Annex.3 as well as Annex.1 summon issued to the petitioner on 15.2.2005 seeking to recover the said amount of Rs.64,80,010/- cannot be sustained in law. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and Annex.1 dated 15.2.2005 and Annex.3 dated 28.2.2005 are quashed. The respondents Mining Engineer, Rajsamand is directed to supply the material on the basis of which said demand was raised against the husband of the petitioner to the petitioner and after affording a reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing to her either herself or through her counsel and thereafter pass appropriate speaking order raising the demand of royalty, if any against the lessee, the late husband of the present petitioner. 8. It is needless to say that if any such demand is raised against the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to her, if the petitioner is still aggrieved by such order, she is free to avail alternative remedy under Rule 43 by way of appeal to the Director Mines against such order of Mining Engineer. 9. With these observations, this writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.Writ petition allowed. *******