Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 436 (RAJ)

Jabbar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2013-02-20

VINEET KOTHARI

body2013
Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Jabbar Singh, challenging the impugned demand notice Annex.3 dated 28.03.2011, by which the respondent- Mining Engineer, Udaipur, called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 14,59,785/- within 15 days towards the revised dead rent in respect of Mining Lease No. 149/83 on the basis of audit objection raised by the audit team of the Accountant General (respondent No.2 herein) for the year 2007-08. A copy of audit memo was also supplied to the petitioner along with said communication dated 28.03.2011. 2. The petitioner has fled this writ petition on 13.04.2011 challenging the said communication calling it to be a demand notice and prayed for quashing of the same. The another prayer made in the writ petition is that it may be held that no revision of dead rent fell due in 1999 and 2004 and no such revision was permissible in view of 3rd proviso of Rule 18 (3) of the Rajasthan Mines & Minerals Concession Rules, 1986 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1986'). 2. While admitting the present writ petition, a coordinate bench of this Court on 19.04.2011 granted an ad-interim stay order in favour of petitioner restraining the respondents from adopting any coercive proceedings for recovery against the petitioner in pursuance of the notice dated 28.03.2011 (Annex.3). The respondent No.2-Accountant General has filed separate reply to the writ petition and, the Mining Department (respondent No.1 and 3) have also filed reply to the writ petition. 3. Mr. D.D. Thanvi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned demand of revised dead rent of Rs. 14,59,785/- could not be straightway raised against the petitioner on the basis of audit objection raised by the Audit Department (Accountant General) and further such demand could not be raised against the petitioner without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 14,59,785/- could not be straightway raised against the petitioner on the basis of audit objection raised by the Audit Department (Accountant General) and further such demand could not be raised against the petitioner without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He also urged that revision of dead rent made under the impugned communication dated 28.03.2011 on the basis of audit objection amounts to retrospective revision of dead rent and since the royalty paid on the excavation of minerals by the petitioner is adjustable against the dead rent i.e. the minimum guaranteed amount of royalty for the mining lease in question, therefore, such a demand required to be paid in the year 2011 for the purported revision of dead rent, which ought to have been made by the Mining Department in the years 1999 and 2004, and, therefore, the same amounts to a retrospective levy on the petitioner, which is not permissible in the law. He, therefore, urged that the impugned demand notice Annex.3 dated 28.03.2011 deserves to be quashed. 4. A brief look into the relevant facts for grant of Mining Lease No. 149/83 to the petitioner is necessary. The mining lease in question initially was granted for ten years for the period 31.01.1984 to 31.01.1994 in favour of one Sh. Subhash Chandra Mor, who, however, transferred the said lease in favour of present petitioner, Jabbar Singh on 04.09.1989 and a transfer-deed was executed by the Mining Department in his favour. The area of the mining lease in question originally was only 11,250 square meters. An additional area of 5400 square meters in the gap area adjacent to petitioner's mining lease, was auctioned in favour of petitioner, which auction was held for determination of dead rent for such an additional area by open bids and the petitioner having given the highest bid for that of Rs.2,52,000/- per annum, the petitioner was, accordingly, given such additional mining area of 5400 square meters, making the total area of the lease to 16650 square meters (11250 + 5400) with effect from 01.07,1997. During the renewal period between (31.01.994 to 30.01.2004) for the total area of 16650 square meters, the dead rent was determined accordingly at Rs.2,52,234/-. A supplementary contract was executed between the petitioner and the Mining Engineer, Udaipur vide Annex.2 for a period of ten yean i.e. from 31.01.2004 to 30.01.2014. During the renewal period between (31.01.994 to 30.01.2004) for the total area of 16650 square meters, the dead rent was determined accordingly at Rs.2,52,234/-. A supplementary contract was executed between the petitioner and the Mining Engineer, Udaipur vide Annex.2 for a period of ten yean i.e. from 31.01.2004 to 30.01.2014. The details of earlier period and orders were also made in the said supplementary contract also. 5. The impugned communication dated 28.03.2011 (Annex.3) along with audit memo was served on the petitioner, which is impugned in the present writ petition, is quoted below in extenso for understanding the factual matrix of the revision of dead rent on the basis of audit objection in the present case. 5. The impugned communication dated 28.03.2011 (Annex.3) along with audit memo was served on the petitioner, which is impugned in the present writ petition, is quoted below in extenso for understanding the factual matrix of the revision of dead rent on the basis of audit objection in the present case. ^^jktLFkku ljdkj vksj ls [kfu vfHk;Urk [kku ,oa HkwfoKku foHkkx] mn;iqjA dks Jh tCcj flag iq= Jh izseflag fuoklh ts-lh- uxj] o`Unkou Ldwy ds ikl] ekdMokyh ftyk vtesj ¼jkt-½ vtesj Øekax [kv@mn;@lhlh-1@,evkj@,e,y-68@93@843 fnukad 28-3-11 fo"k; % [kuu iêk okLrs [kfu ekjcy fudV xzke ckcjeky rglhy ljkMk ftyk mn;iqj esa vkids i{k esaA izlax % [kuu iês esa egkys[kkdkj fujh{k.k izfrosnu o"kZ 07-08 ds Ø esa egksn;] mijksä fo"k; esa ys[k gS fd vkids i{k esa Loh—r m:a [kuu iês esa egkys[kkdkj fujh{k.k izfrosnu o"kZ 2007-08 ds vuqPNsn Hkkx la[;k 11c dh izfr fHktokbZ tk jgh gSA ftlesa jkf'k :i;k 14]59]785@& dh cdk;k fudkyh xbZ gSA ftls vki }kjk tek djk;k tkuk gSA vr% bl i= ds }kjk vkidk mä jkf'k tek djkus gsrq 15 fnol dk le; fn;k tk jgk gSA vr5 jkf'k le;kof/k esa tek djk;s] vU;Fkk fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh tkosxhA layXu % egkys[kkdkj ds vk{ksi la- Hkkax 11c dh izfr Hkonh; Sd/- [kfu vfHk;Urk mn;iqjA Øekad % lela[;d@ fnukad izfrfyfi fuEu dks %& 1- ekax fyfid] dk;kZy; gktk dks Hkstdj ys[k gS fd mä [kuu iês esa jkf'k :i;k 14]59]785@& dh ekax dk;e dh tkdj olwyh dh dk;Zokgh dj fj;k;rh 'kk[kk o vkfMV 'kk[kk dks voxr djkosA Sd/- [kfu vfHk;Urk mn;iqjA Hkkx 11c [kuu iês dk okf"kZd fLFkr HkkVd la'kks/ku ugha djus ls jktLo gkfu jkf'k :io;s 14]59]785@& jktLFkku viz/kku [kfut fj;klr fu;e] 1986 ds fu;e 18¼3½ ds vuqlkj [kuu iês dk okf"kZd fLFkj HkkVd mldh Loh—fr dh rkjh[k ls izR;sd 5 o"kZ ds i'pkr~ fo|eku fLFkj HkkVd esa 40 izfr'kr dh o`f) dj la'kksf/kr gks tk;sxkA ijUrq ,slk la'kksf/kr fLFkj HkkVd tgka [kuu iêk uhykeh ;k fufonk ls eatwj fd;k x;k gks ogka izLrkfor cksyh ds vuqlkj izkjEHk esa fu;r fLFkj HkkVd dk ik¡p xq.kk ls vf/kd ugha gksxkA ys[kk ijh{kk esa ik;k x;k fd [kfut ekcZy ds nks {ks= Øe'k% 2960 rxZehVj ,oa 2479 oxZehVj ds uhykeh }kjk Jh tCcj flag ds i{k esa Lohd`r gq;sA uhykeh fnukad 26-04-1997 dks Jh tCcj flag }kjk buds fy;s cksyh Øe'k% :i;s 115000@& ,oa :i;s 50]000@& dh yxkbZ xbZA Jh tCcj flag ds i{k esa iwoZ esa ,d [kuu iêk la[;k 68@93 vof/k 30-01-1994 ls 20 o"kZ ds fy;s Lohd`r gksdj /k`r FkkA vfrfjä funs'kd [kku t;iqj ds vkns'k fnukad 13-06-1997 ls uhykeh ls fn;s x;s {ks=ksa dks mä [kuu iês esa bldh ewy vof/k rd ds fy;s lfEefyr dj fn;k x;kA uhykeh ls izkIr {ks=ksa dk lafonk iath;u fnukad 01-09-1998 dks djk;k x;k rFkk mlh fnukad ls iêk {ks= dk okf"kZd fLFkj HkkVd :i;s 252234@& fu/kkZfjr gqvk& [kuu iês dk okf"kZd fLFkj HkkVd :i;s 87234@& uhyke fd;s x;s {ks=ksa dk okf"kZd Mh-vkj- :i;s 165000@& dqy fLFkj HkkVd :i;s 252234@& i=koyh ,oa ekax iaftdk dh tk¡p esa ik;k x;k fd iêk {ks= dk fLFkj HkkVd fu/kkzfjr frfFk;ksa 30-01-1999 ,oa 30-01-2004 dks la'kksf/kr ugha fd;s x;s] vfirq fnukad 01-09-1998 dks fu/kkZfjr fLFkj HkkVd :i;s 252234@& dks vf/kdre eku fy;k x;kA fu;er% pwafd {ks= uhykeh ls izkIr FksA vr% budk uhykeh jkf'k ls ik¡p xq.kk rd la'kks/ku fd;k tkuk FkkA ,slk ugha fd;s tkus ls vof/k 30-01-1999 rd jkf'k :i;s 1459785@& dh jktLo gkfu fuEu fooj.kkuqlkj gqbZ %& 30-01-1999 252234 3531289 30-01-1999 ls 5 o"kZ 504470@& 30-01-2004 252234 494379 30-01-2004 ls 31-03-2008 1009046@& mijks:a vof/k esa iêk/kkjd }kjk pqdk;h b-vkj- 53733@& 'kq) jktLo gkfu 1459785@& izdj.k esa ys[kk ijh{kk Kkiu la[;k 7 fnukad 16-02-2009 tkjh dj fVIi.khpkgh xbZA izR;qÙkj esa i=kad 168 fnukad 20-02-2009 ls crk;k fd izdj.k esa tk¡p dh tk jgh gSA tkap mi;qZä vfxze dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA mÙkj varfje gSA vr% izdj.k esa dk;Zokgh dj ys[kk ijh{kk dks voxr djkosA izdj.k 'kklu lfpo] [kku o isVªksf;e jktLFkku t;iqj o funs'kd[kku o Hkw foKku mn;iqj dj mudh fVIi.kh ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr gSA 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. D D. Thanvi, also relied upon Annex.4 Circular issued by the Secretary, Finance of the Govt. of Rajasthan dated 20.8.2007, in which it is clarified that in the demand notices and orders of the concerned departmental authorities instead referring to the audit objection, the reference should be made to the relevant mistake, rules or by-laws and since he Audit Department only discharges its constitutional func-tions under the relevant laws and they are not the concerned departmental authorities, the demands and the orders of the departmental authorities when challenged on the basis of audit objections, compelled the party concerned to implead also the auditors of the concerned audit department also as party in the litigation in the various courts, whereas the audit department has no direct concern, as such demands and the orders and in discharge of their constitutional functions they merely point out the mistakes by the concerned authority of the Department. For the benefit of clear understanding the said Circular Annex.4 dated 20.8.2007 is also quoted below:- ^^jktLFkku ljdkj foÙk foHkkx vads{k.k vuqHkkx Øekad i-4¼3½for@vads{k.k@2002 1@1 t;iqj fnukad 20-8-2007 leLr izeq[k 'kklu lfpo@ 'kklu lfpo@foHkkx/;{k] fo"k;% fofHkUu dk;kZy;ksa }kjk jktLo@'kqYd@ekax i=ksa] vkns'kksa ,oa fu.kZ;ksa esa egkys[kkdkj dk;kZy; ds vk{ksiksa dk lanHkZ ugha fn;s tkus ds laca/k esaA egksn;] ;g /;ku esa yk;k x;k gS fd egkys[kkdkj }kjk tkjh fujh{k.k izfrosnuksa ds vk{ksiksa ds vk/kkj ij jktLo foHkkx ds vUrxZr vkus okys fofHkUu foHkkxksa ;Fkk Hkw jktLo] iath;u ,oa eqnzkad bR;kfn }kjk tkjh fd;s tk jgs ekax i=ksa] vkns'kksa ,oa fu.kZ;ksa vkfn esa dk;kZy; egkys[kkdkj ds vkWfMV vk{ksiksa dk lanHkZ fn;k tkrk gS] ftlls U;k;ky; esa fdlh i{kdkj ds igqapus ij egkys[kkdkj dk;kZy; dks ,d i{k cukus dh ck/;rk mRiUu gks tkrh gS] tcfd egkys[kkdkj dk;kZy; dk fdlh Hkh i{kdkj ls izR;{kr% dksbZ laca/k ugha gksrkA egkys[kkdkj dk;kZy; }kjk ys[kk ijh{kk dk dk;Z laoS/kkfud nkf;Roksa ds v/khu lacaf/kr fu;eksa@vf/kfu;eksa ds vUrxZr fd;k tkrk gSA fujh{k.k izfrosnuksa esa dk;ZizfØ;k dh =`fV] fu;eksa dh vogsyuk vkfn ds dkj.k vk{ksi xfBr fd;k tkrk gS] bu vk{ksiksa dk ijh{k.k dk;kZy; v/;{k@foHkkxk/;{k ds Lrj ij fof/k ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj fd;k tkuk pkfg, vkSj ;fn foHkkx egksys[kkdkj dh vkifÙk ls lgdr gS rks] olwyh vkfn ds fy, tkjh fd;s tkus okys ekax i= esa egkys[kkdkj ds vk{ksiksa dks lanfHkZr djrs gq, ekax i=] vkns'k] fu.kZ; tkjh djus ds LFkku ij lacaf/kr =qfV] fu;e@mifu;e dk Li"V mYys[k fd;k tkosA Hkonh; sd/- 'kklu lfpo foÙk izFke** Mr. D,D. Thanvi, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 and urged that the reasons for demand in question raised in Annex.3 dated 28.3.2011 cannot be supplemented further by the Mining Department or even by the Auditor/Accountant General and the reasons for demanding the amount of revised dead rent in question ought to have been contained in the impugned order Annex.3 dated 28.3.2011 itself. reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 and urged that the reasons for demand in question raised in Annex.3 dated 28.3.2011 cannot be supplemented further by the Mining Department or even by the Auditor/Accountant General and the reasons for demanding the amount of revised dead rent in question ought to have been contained in the impugned order Annex.3 dated 28.3.2011 itself. He further submitted that the aforesaid judgment clearly lays down that when the quashi-judicial functionaries make an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned in the said order itself and the same cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise, since the order passed in the meantime may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later on raised. 8. He also urged that under the 3rd proviso of Rule 18 (3) itself the cap of five times of the dead rent calculated as per Schedule-II in force at the time of revision of dead rent is prescribed and, therefore, the present demand raised being in excess of five times, could not have been raised against the petitioner. 9. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Soni, learned counsel for the Mining Department and Ms. Garima Chouhan appearing for Mr. V.K. Mathur, counsel for the respondent No.2, Accountant General, submitted that the impugned communication Annex.3 dated 28.03.2011 is merely a communication made to the petitioner along- with the copy of memo of audit objection and the same is neither an adjudication order nor is a final demand raised against the petitioner. The amount of Rs. 14,59,785/- indicated in the said communication required to be paid by the petitioner is based on the calculations made by the auditor in. the annexed memo of audit objection, which the learned counsel for the respondents urged that is nothing but computation of petitioner's liability to pay the revised dead rent computed in accordance with Rule 18(3) of the MMCR Rules of 1986. the annexed memo of audit objection, which the learned counsel for the respondents urged that is nothing but computation of petitioner's liability to pay the revised dead rent computed in accordance with Rule 18(3) of the MMCR Rules of 1986. They further argued that once the revised dead rent of the petitioner was fixed upon auction of the additional area of 5400 square meters in favour of petitioner in the year 1997 at Rs.2,52,234/- (165000 auction bid + 87234/- Dead Rent for preexisting mining lease), for the entire area of 16,650 square meters, was fixed in the year 1998 vide Annex.1 dated 8.10.1998, the said dead rent was required to be revised on the due dates of five years on 31.1.1999 and again on 31.01.2004 since the original lease period of ten years for ML No. 149/83 was for the period 31.1.1984 to 31.1.1994. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents also urged that there are as many as five provisos in Rule 18(3) of the Rules of 1986 and all have to be read ad-seriatum in harmony and no disjuncted reading of these 5 provisos is either called for or even argued to be so done by the petitioner. Explaining the audit memo, learned counsels for the respondents, justified the computation of the revised demand of dead rent of Rs.14,59,785/- on the basis of formula given in Rule 18 (3) in 2nd proviso, which stipulates "Revised rent = existing dead rent + 40% of the existing dead rent". Learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, submitted that the revised dead rent after the auction of additional area of the petitioner in the year 1998 at Rs.2,52,234/- was revised to Rs.3,53,128/- (2,52,234 + 40/100 x 2,52,234 = 1,00,893/-)=3,53,128/- as on 31.01.1999, and then on second revision due on 30.01.2004, adding further 40% to the existing dead rent of Rs.3,53,128/- i.e. Rs.1,41,2551/-, the revised dead rent of Rs.4,94,379/- for the period 30.01.2004 to , 30.01.2008 was fixed and thus the total revised dead rent was arrived at Rs.15,13,558/- and after adjusting excess royalty (E.R.) of Rs.53,733/- against the difference amount of revised dead rent on account of such revision of dead rent of Rs.15,13,558/-, the net demand of Rs.14,59,785/- was computed against the petitioner and the same was communicated to him by Annex.3 dated 28.03.2011. 11. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that if the petitioner had any objection against the mathematical computation of said demand raised against him on the basis of audit objection, he could certainly approach the concerned Mining Engineer, Udaipur as fifteen days' time was given in the said communication either to pay or object; and unless such demand was paid the further proceedings as per Rules would be undertaken. They submitted that mere requirement to pay the said difference amount of revised dead rent, which was explicitly based on the computations or calculations made in accordance with various provisos of Rule 18(3), firstly could not be challenged by the petitioner and secondly, if he had any grievance in the matter or objection against the said demand, he could definitely approach the concerned Mining Engineer and explain his stand in the matter so that the appropriate orders on the same could be passed by him. But, in the absence of the petitioner having approached the concerned authority himself but instead of that he directly approached by way of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has deprived himself of this opportunity to make his representation before the concerned authority and, therefore, the respondent Mining Engineer cannot be faulted for the same. 12. Lastly, the learned counsel for the respondents prayed that the demand raised by the respondents is legal and in accordance with Rule 18 (3) of the MMCR Rules of 1986, which not only deserves to be upheld but the petitioner should be directed to pay the said demand of Revised Dead Rent with the dismissal of the writ petition. 13. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and perused the record and relevant statutes including the audit objection raised by the respondent No.2, Accountant General and the case laws cited at bar. 14. It would be of use to reproduce the relevant Rule 18(3) skipping other sub-rules, which is relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, "18. Conditions. 14. It would be of use to reproduce the relevant Rule 18(3) skipping other sub-rules, which is relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, "18. Conditions. The following conditions shall be included in every mining lease and if they are not so included shall be deemed to have been included therein:- [1] (a) The holder of a mining lease granted before the commencement of these rules, shall notwithstanding anything contained in the instrument of lease or any law or rules in force at such commencement, pay royalty in respect of any mineral removed by him from and/or consumed within the leased area after such commencement at the rates for the time being specified in Schedule i in respect of that mineral; (b) The holder of a mining lease granted on or after the commencement of these rules shall pay royalty in respect of any mineral removed by him from and/or consumed within the leased area at the rate for the time being specified in the Schedule I in respect of that minora; (c) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule I so as to enhance the rate at which royalty shall be payable in respect of any mineral in accordance with the provisions of these rules with effect from such date as may be specified. Provided that no enhancement in the rate of royalty shall be made before a period of [3] years from such previous enhancement; (2)(a) The lessee shall pay for surface area used by him for the purpose) of mining, surface rent to Revenue Department as per the rates prevalent in the area; (b) The Government shall be entitled to charge certain amount per year or part thereof for the ecological restoration of mines and quarries from the lessee and this shall be the part of agreement. The amount may be fixed and revised by Government from time to time and may vary from place to place; (3) The lessee shall also pay for every year such yearly dead rent as may be fixed by the Government in quarterly installments in advance and if the lease permits the working of more than one mineral, the State Government shall not charge separate dead rent in respect of each mineral; Provided that the yearly dead rent at the time of initial grant: shall be according to the rates specified in Schedule-ll. The rates specified in Schedule-ll shall, however, not be applicable at the time of revision of dead rent; [Provided further that the rate of annual dead rent shall stand revised after every five years from the date of initial grant or renewal of the mining lease in accordance with the following formula:- Revised dead rent-Existing dead rent+40% of Existing dead rent, [Provided further also that revised dead rent shall not exceed five times of the dead rent calculated as per Schedule-ll in force at time of revision of dead rent; [ ] Provided further also that the existing dead rent shall not be reduced if it is more than the dead rent calculated as aforesaid;] Provided further also that the lessee shall be liable to pay either dead rent or royalty in respect of each mineral whichever is higher but not both;" (4) to (32) xxx" 15. It is beyond the pale of doubt that Rule 18(3) of the Rules of 1986, which deals with fixation and payment of dead rent is clear to its core. The said rule is nothing but a simple provision providing for the mathematical calculations and computation on the due given dates, The measures and factors, which are required to compute such liability of payment of dead rent by the lessee of the mining lease, are the facts already existing on record and within the knowledge of the lessee. The Rule 18(3) for revision of dead rent is unlike assessment power of a taxing authority, which are quasi-judicial in nature and which empowers such assessing authority to undertake the assessment proceedings on the basis of returns and records of the assessee. The Rule 18(3) for revision of dead rent is unlike assessment power of a taxing authority, which are quasi-judicial in nature and which empowers such assessing authority to undertake the assessment proceedings on the basis of returns and records of the assessee. Since the payment of dead rent is based on the area of mining lease and rates given in Schedule-ll or the auction amount of dead rent, if there is such an event as it has taken place in the present case for the gap area, then the provision for revision of dead rent every five years from the date of initial grant or renewal in accordance with the provisions specified in Rule 18 (3), namely, adding of 40% of existing dead rent to the already existing dead rent on the date of revision due, is nothing but a simple mathematical computation. When the Rule itself provides for method of Computation of any liability by the subject, it no more remains a quasi-judicial function, to be undertaken by the authority concerned and the subject or the person, who is to discharge such liability specified in these rules can be very well presumed to be in know of the relevant rules. The factors and the measures for the determination of such revised dead rent like the area of mining lease, period when revision is due, rates specified in Schedule-ll and the auction amount of dead rent are already known to him and are fully within his knowledge. Such knowledge in the facts to the present case also is neither disputed nor questioned by anyone including the petitioner. 16. In the context of the Rule 18(3), which is quoted above, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.D. Thanvi that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing before raising the impugned demand under Annex.3 dated 28.03.2011, is not only misconceived but wrong for two fold reasons, viz. 16. In the context of the Rule 18(3), which is quoted above, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.D. Thanvi that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing before raising the impugned demand under Annex.3 dated 28.03.2011, is not only misconceived but wrong for two fold reasons, viz. (i) as aforesaid since the Rule 18 (3) provides for step by step method of computation of the liability for payment of dead rent including the revised dead rent on the basis of factors, which are within the knowledge of the lessee, the impugned demand cannot be said to be a result of any adjudicatory process for which the petitioner could be required to be given an opportunity of hearing before communicating him the said demand; and (ii) the Annex.3, communication dated 28.03.2011 is nothing but a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to either pay demand of revised dead rent, if he accepts the same as correct, and if not acceptable to him, it nowhere prohibits him to approach the concerned authority himself raising his objections, and asking the authority concerned to give the details of such demand and method of computation thereof. 17. Merely because, the petitioner has been called upon to pay the said demand of revised dead rent of Rs.14,59,785/- in the said communication Annex.3 dated 28.03.2011, it could not have furnished any cause of action to the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court straightway by filing the present writ petition. The said tentative demand of revised dead rent is one in accordance with Rule 18(3) of which either payment could be made by the petitioner or objection as to the calculation mistake, if any, could be raised by him. The petitioner did not avail either of the two options but rushed to this Court unnecessarily and rather prematurely. 18. Prima-facie, this Court is satisfied that the said demand of revision of dead rent of Rs.14,59,785/- on the basis of audit objection, quoted above, is in accord with the computation method provided under the Rule 18 (3) of the MMCR Rules of .1986. 18. Prima-facie, this Court is satisfied that the said demand of revision of dead rent of Rs.14,59,785/- on the basis of audit objection, quoted above, is in accord with the computation method provided under the Rule 18 (3) of the MMCR Rules of .1986. The respondent Mining Department was obviously earlier in error in not [revising the dead rent on the due dates on 31.01.1999 and 31.01.2004, and it is only when the above mistake came to the notice of the auditor in the audit of the concerned record conducted by him and thereupon the audit objection in question was raised by the auditor concerned that the same was communicated to the petitioner by the concerned Mining Engineer vide Annex.3 dated 28.03.2011. The said communication Annex.3 dated 28.03.2011 appears to be in accord with the Circular Annex.4 dated 20.08.2004 also, where the Audit Department of the Government of Rajasthan seeking to avoid unnecessary impleadment of the Auditor in the litigation, sought to clarify that while raising the demand on the basis of audit objection, the concerned departmental authorities should refer to the mistake or lapse itself and relevant rules instead of raising demand solely with reference to the audit objection. This Circular neither says nor does it | mean, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that audit department has restricted the concerned authority in any manner not to raise any demand on the basis of audit objection. To say the least, this contention is misconceived. The very purpose of such audit objection is to correct the mistake and recover the deficit public revenue, from the subject or assessee or lessee in mining cases. 19. It is true that the Audit Department is an independent wing of the State Government, and the sole object of the Audit Department is to point out the mistakes of the concerned authorities of the various Departments working in the State, which are within the domain of the Audit Department. 19. It is true that the Audit Department is an independent wing of the State Government, and the sole object of the Audit Department is to point out the mistakes of the concerned authorities of the various Departments working in the State, which are within the domain of the Audit Department. The said Circular, merely seeks to avoid the possibility of unnecessary impleadment of audit department in the litigation but the concerned departmental authorities, should own up their own mistakes and responsibility in this regard and while putting the subjects or lessees under any particular statutory liability to discharge the same, merely calls upon such authorities to narrate the concerned mistake or irregularity and with reference to the relevant rules, so that such unnecessary impleadment of the audit department in the litigation before the Courts of law can be avoided, which is wholly unnecessary in view of the nature of their discharge of duties. 20. in the present case itself, the petitioner has impleaded the respondent No 2, Accountant General, Rajasthan, Jaipur, precisely fortifying the aforesaid apprehension expressed by audit department in the said Circular dated 20.08.2007 and not only that said respondent No.2, Accountant General, had to engage a lawyer and file its reply to the writ petition before this Court. 21. It was essentially the duty and obligation of the Mining Department to recover the royalty or the revied dead rent in accordance with Rule 18(3) but since at the relevant point of time, they failed to do so, such mistake was pointed out by the audit department in the memo of audit objection, which was merely communicated to the petitioner requiring him to pay the said difference amount of revised dead rent by the concerned Mining Engineer vide Annex.3 dated 28.03.2011, which was otherwise also a pre-existing statutory and contractual liability of the petitioner-lessee. 22. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Thanvi, that the said demand of revised dead rent is retrospective in character and, therefore, cannot be now permitted to be raised in the year 2011 is also equally devoid of merit and the same is, accordingly, rejected. The mistake of fact can always be rectified. 22. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Thanvi, that the said demand of revised dead rent is retrospective in character and, therefore, cannot be now permitted to be raised in the year 2011 is also equally devoid of merit and the same is, accordingly, rejected. The mistake of fact can always be rectified. The petitioner himself was bound to comply with Rule 18(3) and suo-motu pay the revised dead rent upon the due dates of five years since the date of initial grant of lease for ten years, which period expired on 31.1.1994 and first renewal became due on 31.01.1999 and second on 31.01.2004. As stated above, the factors and measures provided in Rule 18(3) of the Rules of 1986 including the knowledge of the law i.e. the relevant Rule 18(3), can be attributed in law to the petitioner, the mining lease holder, therefore, the petitioner cannot raise an objection that the demand is being raised now for a retrospective period. The contention in the light of last Proviso of Rule 18(3) that since royalty and the dead rent are mutually adjustable and the royalty paid on the basis of excavated minerals, is liable to be adjusted against the dead rent and only after the limit of the dead rent is reached, the excess royalty would payable by the lessee, is also not sustainable because in the audit memo in question itself as quoted above, it clearly shows that the petitioner-has been given a set off of such excess royalty to the extent of Rs.53,733/- against the revised dead rent of Rs.15,13,518/- and only he net demand of Rs.14,59,785/- has been raised against the petitioner and there is no conflict or non-compliance with the last or ;he 5th proviso to Rule 18 (3) of Rules of 1986 in the present case. The cap of five times of revised dead rent of Rs.2,52,234/- in 1998 upon additional lease, has admittedly not been crossed in the case of the petitioner. The first proviso of Rule 18 (3) makes the said rates inapplicable in the case of revision of dead rent. 23. The cap of five times of revised dead rent of Rs.2,52,234/- in 1998 upon additional lease, has admittedly not been crossed in the case of the petitioner. The first proviso of Rule 18 (3) makes the said rates inapplicable in the case of revision of dead rent. 23. As already aforesaid, since the computation of revised dead rent is not a quasi-judicial exercise to be undertaken by the respondent Mining Engineer and the liability and the method of computation thereof, has already been specified and clarified in the relevant Rule 18(3) itself, there was neither any need of giving of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner nor there has been a breach of principles of natural justice in the present case. Assuming for argument sake, though it is not, that it was so required the Annex.3 communication dated 28.03.2011 then is only a notice to him and nothing prevented the petitioner from approaching the concerned respondent Mining Engineer, and raising his objection as to the computation of revised dead rent before the said authority. The liability to pay revised dead rent could not be objected by the petitioner but only the correctness of mathematical calculations could be sought to be clarified if at all the petitioner had something incorrect to point out in the same. However, since the petitioner did not avail of this opportunity and misconstruing the Anenx.3 dated 28.03.2011, which is a mere communication to him, as the final adjudication order, approached this Court by way of present writ petition, which was premature for him to do so. 24. In view of the above discussion and observations, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court against the said show cause notice was not only premature but is not even based on any good factual or legal foundation. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to deposit the revised dead rent of Rs.14,59,785/- with the respondent- Mining Engineer, Udaipur forthwith. If the petitioner wants to point out any computation error in the said demand of revised dead rent, he may do so within two weeks from today, otherwise it may be presumed that he accepts the said calculation as correct. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to deposit the revised dead rent of Rs.14,59,785/- with the respondent- Mining Engineer, Udaipur forthwith. If the petitioner wants to point out any computation error in the said demand of revised dead rent, he may do so within two weeks from today, otherwise it may be presumed that he accepts the said calculation as correct. If he points out any such calculation error, the concerned Mining Engineer shall immediately verify the same and passing appropriate order, communicate the correct demand of revised dead rent, if there is any such error otherwise or reiterating the aforesaid demand of Rs.14,59,785/- will call upon the petitioner to pay the same immediately and the petitioner shall pay the same forthwith. In the absence of payment of revised dead rent by the petitioner, the respondent Mining Department will be free to proceed against the 1" petitioner for taking appropriate action including cancellation of Mining Lease in question and recovery of such revised dead rent through measures provided in law, This entire exercise shall be completed within one month from today and compliance report be submitted in this Court. If the petitioner does not pay the revised dead rent within one month from today, the Mining Department will be free to recover the same with interest @ 9% per annum from the due dates of payment of revised dead rent till the actual payment by the petitioner, besides action by way of the cancellation of his Mining Lease. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith, No costs.