Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Since common questions of law arise in these writ petitions with marginal variation on facts which do not impinge of the fundamentals of the challenge made in each of these petitions, these petitions are being decided by this common order. However, for the disposal of this bunch of seven petitions, the facts in the case of Deewa Construction Product Industry, SBCWP No.2602/2012, are being considered. 2. A challenge has been laid in SBCWP No.2602/2012 to the order dated 24.01.2012, passed by the Mines Engineer, Alwar holding that with reference to rawannas utilized by the petitioner, on the inspection of the pits for the excavation of the masonry stone in the mining lease area of the petitioner, it appeared that the petitioner had excavated / transported masonry stone much in excess of the excavated masonry stone consequent to which it appeared that the excess masonry stone transported albeit under rawannas issued by the Department was sourced from unauthorised mining activity and consequently the petitioner was liable to pay ten times royalty on masonry stone as penalty in respect of 1,63,842.5 tonnes of masonry stone. 3. A perusal of the impugned order dated 24.1.2012, passed by the Mining Engineer, Alwar indicates that the said order is inter alia founded upon a directive of the Deputy Secretary, Government of Mines & Geology, Jaipur issued on 02.01.2012 wherein the assessing authority, Mining Engineer, Alwar, was required to overlook the specific report of geologist of the Department that for the determination of the volume of masonry stone excavated from the mining lease area of the petitioner the specific gravity of 2.6 be taken into consideration. The Deputy Secretary further proceeded to state that in the event the recommended specific gravity of 2.6 were taken into consideration, it would lead to anomalies and lack of uniformity and for this reason the conversion factor of 1.4 tonnes/equivalent to one M3 as per schedule I of MMCR Rules, 1986 was to be applied. 4. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the conversion factor of 1.4 tonnes for each M3 as indicated in the schedule I of MMCR Rules, 1986 is relevant only for the determination of payment of royalty in terms of Rule 18(1)(b) of MMCR Rules, 1986 and cannot entail a determination of the volume of the mineral excavated. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the conversion factor of 1.4 tonnes for each M3 as indicated in the schedule I of MMCR Rules, 1986 is relevant only for the determination of payment of royalty in terms of Rule 18(1)(b) of MMCR Rules, 1986 and cannot entail a determination of the volume of the mineral excavated. He submits that the volume of excavated mineral can only be determined on the basis of specific gravity which in the case of the petitioner was found to be 2.65 by the Geologist at the Department Laboratory at Udaipur. It has been submitted that the case set up by the petitioner in defence against the show cause notice dated 13.01.2009 was thus mechanically overlooked and sidestepped by the assessing authority Mining Engineer, Alwar on the directions of the Deputy Secretary Mines in his letter dated 02.01.2012 and the order dated 24.01.2012 is liable to be set aside on this count. It has been further submitted that even otherwise without any ground level having been provided for at the time of grant of mining lease and handing over the site to the petitioner, it was most unfair and unjust after passage of over last fifteen years to determine the quantum of masonry stone excavated by the petitioner on an arithmetical basis. It has been submitted that the mining lease is admittedly located in a “Gair Mumkin Pahad” area and the removal of masonry stone from the overburden cannot possibly reflect in any arithmetical calculation based on the dimension of the pits in the leased area. 5. I however find that there is no occasion to address the merits of the case set up in this petition seeking to impugn the order dated 24.01.2012, passed by the Mining Engineer, Alwar in view of the fact that the order of the Mining Engineer, Alwar is an appealable order under Rule 43(1) of MMCR Rules, 1986. 6. The petitioner however apprehends that the appeal under Rule 43(1) of MMCR Rules, 1986 would be a mere idle and futile formality in view of the letter dated 02.01.2012, issued by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Mines & Geology, Jaipur who is the 2nd appellate / revising authority himself in terms of Rule 43(2) and Rule 47 of MMCR Rules, 1986. It is submitted that with the superior authority having expressed its view on the matter and issued a fiat for keeping uniformity without regard to the defence of the petitioner based on technical, legal and factual grounds the doctrine of alternative remedy is not real and efficacious and should be overlooked. 7. I have considered the submission of the Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner. 8. In my considered view, the Deputy Secretary, Government of Mines & Geology, Jaipur ought to have eschewed from issuing a directive in his letter dated 02.01.2012 and ought not to have intruded into the assessment proceedings before the Mining Engineer, Alwar more so the Deputy Secretary is the statutory authority for both second appeals and revisions under the MMCR Rules, 1986. The directive militates against the independence of the assessing authority in exercising its jurisdiction in law. 9. In this view of the matter, I would direct that even though the petitioner be required to avail remedy of appeal under Rule 43(1)of MMCR Rules, 1986, the appellate authority will not to be influenced or even taken into consideration the directive dated 02.01.2012, issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Director, Mines and Geology Department, Udaipur (with the copy to Mining Engineer, Alwar). The petitioner on its part should in these circumstances avail the remedy under Rule 43(1) of MMCR Rules, 1986 and lay an appeal against the order dated 24.01.2012, passed by the Mining Engineer, Alwar. The appeal be heard only by the Director, Mines and Geology Department, Udaipur. The petitioner will be free to agitate and contest the appeal both on facts and law and also lead evidences as deemed fit. The Mines Department on its part would similarly be free to set up its defence to the appeal. The Director, Mines and Geology Department, Udaipur on filing of the appeal within a period of fifteen days from today shall decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks of its filing. The appeal be decided on merits without regard to issue of limitation inasmuch as this petition (as were others) was filed before this Court on 22.02.2012 or near about within the period of limitation for laying of an appeal under Rule 43 of MMCR Rules, 1986 against the impugned orders. 10. The appeal be decided on merits without regard to issue of limitation inasmuch as this petition (as were others) was filed before this Court on 22.02.2012 or near about within the period of limitation for laying of an appeal under Rule 43 of MMCR Rules, 1986 against the impugned orders. 10. It is made clear that the petitioner will be free to move an application for interim protection during the pendency of the appeal and the same will be addressed with due application of mind by the Director, Mines and Geology Department, Udaipur. Till the application for stay in the appeal is decided, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Stay application also disposed of. 12. Connected matters detailed in the cause title similarly disposed of both in respect of the writ petitions and stay applications.