JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 05.06.2018 (Annex.-3) and 14.08.2019 (Annex.-5), passed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority respectively to the extent of stipulation regarding payment of interest @ 15% per month. 2. Having apprised the Court about the facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has challenged the calculation sheet (Annex.7), which has been supplied to the petitioner along with the reply filed in petitioner’s earlier writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1121/2020 so also levy of interest at an exorbitant rate of 15% per month by the Appellate Authority and affirmed by the Revisional Authority. 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was granted a quarry licence on 08.07.2010 for excavation of sandstone in Khasra No.32, 33, 34, 38, 39 and 40 in total 30 Bigha 17 Biswas. 4. As the petitioner failed to deposit licence fee, TCS and penalty amount etc., the Mining Engineer determined petitioner’s quarry licence by way of the order dated 05.10.2016. In an appeal preferred thereagainst by the petitioner, the Additional Director, Mines by an order dated 05.06.2018 though set aside the order dated 05.10.2016 however imposed a condition of payment of penalty of Rs.25,000/-, apart from the due licence fee and interest at the rate of 15% per month for the delayed payment. The petitioner was directed to deposit the amount within a period of 30 days, for getting the quarry restored in petitioner’s favour. 5. According to the petitioner, when he contacted the Mining Engineer, he demanded licence fee for the entire period during which the quarry licence remained terminated and an exorbitant amount of late payment fee. 6. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 63 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2017”) but the same was registered and decided as a Revision Petition. 7. The petitioner in his memo of appeal (revision petition) contended that the Mining Engineer is requiring him to deposit licence fee even for the period during which the possession of the quarry was not with the petitioner and is demanding an excessive late payment fee. 8. 7. The petitioner in his memo of appeal (revision petition) contended that the Mining Engineer is requiring him to deposit licence fee even for the period during which the possession of the quarry was not with the petitioner and is demanding an excessive late payment fee. 8. By way of the order dated 14.08.2019, the Revisional Authority rejected the petitioner’s revision petition and enhanced the penalty amount from Rs.25,000/-(as ordered by the Appellate Authority) to Rs.50,000/-justifying the so called penalty @ 15% per month by observing that the same cannot be treated to be interest. He however allowed the petitioner to deposit the amount within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. 9. It is not disputed that the petitioner had tendered a Demand Draft of Rs.4,40,000/- on 26.02.2018, towards his dues before the respondent No.3 (Mining Engineer), even prior to the decision of the appeal, but the same was returned by the respondent No.3, as is evident from perusal of the para No.2 of the internal page 2 of the order of the Appellate Authority dated 05.06.2018. 10. Since, the respondent No.3 refused to both restore the petitioner’s quarry licence and accept the Demand Draft towards the amount due, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1121/2020 with the following prayers:- "i. The respondents may kindly be directed to supply information to the petitioner regarding the outstanding amount for the period the quarry licence remained in possession of the humble petitioner and the petitioner may further be given appropriate time period to deposit the same with the respondents. ii. The respondents may kindly be further directed to permit the petitioner to continue with the mining activities without any obstruction of any kind. iii. Any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble High Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 11. A reply to the writ petition along with a calculation sheet was filed by the respondents in the said writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1121/2020) indicating that an amount of Rs.85,25,527/- is outstanding against the petitioner. 12. The said writ petition was disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to challenge the calculation of the amount in accordance with law. 13. 12. The said writ petition was disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to challenge the calculation of the amount in accordance with law. 13. Whereafter the present petition has been preferred laying challenge to the demand or calculation of the due amount made by the respondents reflected in the calculation sheet (Annex.7). 14. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, having invited Court’s attention towards the admitted facts, submitted that petitioner’s quarry licence stood cancelled vide order dated 05.10.2016, which order was set aside by the Appellate Authority and the same was affirmed by the Revisional Authority. He argued that since, the quarry licence was terminated with effect from 31.03.2016 and the petitioner was neither having possession of the quarry licence nor has it been a case of the respondents that he had excavated the mineral, the respondent, cannot seek to recover the licence fee, interest or purported penalty thereupon and other incidental charges for such period, as has been depicted in the calculation sheet (Annex.7). 15. While submitting that such determination is contrary to principles of natural justice, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the same is fundamentally void and without jurisdiction, given the fact that the respondent No.3 had refused to even accept the amount when offered by the petitioner. He also argued that interest or penalty @ 15% per month is excessive and deserves to be set aside. 16. Mr. Mrigraj Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted that if the petitioner feels aggrieved with the calculation of the amount, he should prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Rules of 2017. It was also argued that as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2017, the licence holder is required to pay the licence fee and other charges even, when the excavation is not done or the licence remains closed. He was not in a position to point out any statutory provision under which such huge amount of interest or so called penalty (@ 15% per month) can be levied. 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 18. He was not in a position to point out any statutory provision under which such huge amount of interest or so called penalty (@ 15% per month) can be levied. 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 18. In the opinion of this court if the petitioner is required to avail the remedy of appeal, particularly when there is no order or determination of the demand and no notice has been issued to the petitioner, the remedy of appeal would practically be redundant and inefficacious, particularly when a circular has been issued by the State Government itself on 14.03.2008 and also when there is a direct judgment of this Court in the case of Rampal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1588/2022), adjudicating on the issue while noticing such circular. 19. The relevant paras of the judgment in the case of Rampal (supra) reads thus:- 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and in view of aforesaid settled legal position, the Circular dated 14.03.2008, which is quoted herein below for ready reference, and so also, the judgment cited at bar, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed and the amount deposited by the petitioner under protest vide Annex.5 and Annex.6 dated 01.02.2002 also deserves to be refunded back to the petitioner with interest, however, after adjustment of dead rent and royalty, if any payable up to 18.05.1999. The Circular dated 14.03.2008 reads as under:- ^^jktLFkku ljdkj [kku ¼xzqi&2½ foHkkx Øekad i-11¼1½¼58½[kku@xqzi&2@2008 t;iqj] fnukad 14 ekpZ 2008 ifji= Jh Hkaojyky cuke jktLFkku jkT; o vU; ds ,lŒ chŒ fjV fiVh'ku la[;k 241@2008 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; fnukad 19-02-2008 esa ;g er izxV fd;k gS fd lEcfU/kr foHkkxksa@vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk fdlh fookfnr fcUnq ij ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ?kksf"kr@fuf.kZr fcUnqvks ( has attained finality) ds vUrxZr iznÙk funsZ'kuksa dh vuqikyuk Rofjrrk ,oa rRijrk ls djuh pkfg;sA tSlk fd mnkgj.k ds fy;s ftl vof/k esa [kuu iVVs dk dCtk foHkkx ds ikl jgk gks ml vof/k ds fu"izksT; ¼MsM jsUV½ dh ekax djuk D;k U;k;ksfpr gS\ tcfd [kuu iVVs dh foHkkx ds ikl dCts dh vof/k dk fdjk;k ugha fy;s tkus ls lEcfU/kr fcUnq dk vfUre fu.kZ; iwoZ esa fn;k tk pqdk gSA vr% leLr lEcfU/kr vf/kdkfj;ksa dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd Hkfo"; esa fu"izksT; fdjk;s ¼MsM jsUV½ ds izdj.kksa ds lkFk&lkFk ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk vfUre :i ls fuLrkfjr vU;kU; leku izdj.kksa esa iznÙk funsZ'kuksa dh Hkh vuqikyuk rnuq:i lqfuf'pr dh tkosA ,LkMh ¼MkWŒ v'kksd fla?koh½ 'kklu lfpo izfrfyfi funs'kd] [kku ,oa Hkw foKku foHkkx] jktLFkku] mn;iqj dks izsf”kr dj ys[k gS fd lHkh vf/kdkfj;ksa ls mDr ifji= dh ikyuk djuk lqfuf'pr djkosaA ,LkMh 'kklu lfpo^^ 8. During the period for which the mine admittedly remained in the possession of Mining Department and the petitioner was not allowed to undertake any mining work, no such dead rent or royalty can be demanded by the respondent Mining Department from the petitioner for such interim period. Therefore, to that extent, the condition imposed in the impugned order dated 02.01.2002 (Annex.1) deserves to be quashed. 9. This Court in the case of M/s Ganpati Khanij Udhyog (supra) held as under: -“9. Besides that, there cannot be any justification for the respondents to charge deadrent for the period the lease area remained in the possession of the State Govt. Dead rent is the minimum annual payment which is required to be made by the lessee even if there is no mining work in particular area. Royalty is the rent which the lessor of amine charges from a lessee for the product taken out from the mine. It varies with the quantity of the minerals. Dead rent is the minimum annual payment which is required to be made by the lessee even if there is no mining work in particular area. Royalty is the rent which the lessor of amine charges from a lessee for the product taken out from the mine. It varies with the quantity of the minerals. When there is no mining work by the petitioner in the mining area and it was not in the possession of the petitioner there could not be any justification for charging dead rent from the petitioner. This Court has taken this view in the cases of Chhoga Ram and Radhey Shyam (supra). Even the Central Govt. in its order dated 14.5.84 in case No.321/84 M/s Chemical Limes Vs State of Rajasthan, held that the State Govt. was not entitled to claim dead rent for the period the possession of the lease area remained with the Govt.” 10. …… …. ….. 11. In view of this settled legal position and there being no serious dispute on the same, from the side of the respondents, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above and while upholding the impugned order Annex.1 dated 02.01.2002, to the extent it set aside the limine cancellation order dated 12.04.1999, the remaining impugned part of the order to the extent it directed the petitioner to deposit the dead rent and other dues for the interim period is quashed.” 20. It is rather surprising that in spite of the fact that the order dated 05.10.2016, terminating petitioner’s quarry licence having been set aside by the Appellate Authority, the respondent No.3 did not issue a demand notice to the petitioner so that he could know the amount to be deposited. The petitioner has made a categorical assertion in para No.5 of the writ petition that he had requested the respondent No.3 to apprise him about the amount to be deposited but such assertion of the petitioner has been replied in a cursory manner. 21. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had tendered a Demand Draft of Rs.4,40,000/-being Demand Draft No.669958 dated 26.02.2018, which was admittedly returned by the respondent No.3 alleging it to be not in accordance with law. 22. 21. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had tendered a Demand Draft of Rs.4,40,000/-being Demand Draft No.669958 dated 26.02.2018, which was admittedly returned by the respondent No.3 alleging it to be not in accordance with law. 22. Maybe, the amount(Rs.4,40,000/-) tendered by the petitioner was insufficient to satisfy the due demand, but if the respondent No.3 was of the view that the amount is in any manner less, he ought to have asked the petitioner to deposit remaining amount with details. Otherwise also, unless the Mining Engineer calculated the due amount and intimate it to the petitioner, it was practically impossible for him to clear the outstanding amount. 23. The petitioner’s contention that the respondent No.3 was insisting upon payment of the amount of licence fee and other dues even up to the year 2018 is well founded on record and not simply because such contention is raised in the memo of revision petition. 24. It is also clear from the record that the demand notice showing due amount for the period after 31.03.2016 has never been served upon the petitioner and it was only in the reply to petitioner’s earlier writ petition, the above referred calculation (Annex.-7) was enclosed by the respondents. 25. Such calculation apart from being arbitrary and contrary to principles of natural justice, is unsustainable on merit as well. 26. In order to support his contention that the petitioner is liable to pay the licence fee for the intervening period of licence, Mr. Mrigraj Singh, learned counsel had relied upon the proviso to sub-rule (4) of the Rule 10 of the Rules of 2017, which for the sake of ready reference is reproduced hereunder:- “(4) The Period of quarry licence may be extended upto the period for which the quarry remained close (dies-non) due to any court order: Provided that where licence remains closed due to any fault on the part of the licencee or where part of licence was only closed, the period shall not be extended and annual licence fee shall be chargeable for such period.” 27. A simple look at the proviso shows that where a Quarry remains closed due to any fault on the part of the licencee or where part of licence remained closed, the period shall not be extended and annual licence fee shall be chargeable for such period. 28. A simple look at the proviso shows that where a Quarry remains closed due to any fault on the part of the licencee or where part of licence remained closed, the period shall not be extended and annual licence fee shall be chargeable for such period. 28. Concededly, it is not a case where the licence remained closed due to the fault of the petitioner after 31.03.2016. The, petitioner’s licence came to be terminated per viam order dated 05.10.2016 and thereafter in spite of the fact that the Appellate Authority had set aside the same, the respondent No.3 neither accepted the amount tendered by the petitioner nor did he ever inform the petitioner about the amount payable. Hence, it cannot be said that the excavation or quarry remained closed due to fault on the part of the petitioner. 29. Admittedly, neither quarry area was handed over to the petitioner nor was he permitted to win the mineral. Hence, the demand of licence fee raised for the period after 01.04.2016 by Annex.7 is clearly illegal, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. 30. Another important question which calls for judicial scrutiny by this Court is, imposition of 15% per month interest or purported penalty that has been inflicted by the Appellate Authority per viam order dated 05.06.2018. It is to be noted that the Appellate Authority has required the petitioner to pay a sum of 15% per month without clarifying as to whether the same is interest or penalty much less indicating the statutory provision. That apart, the same has been done in an appeal filed by the petitioner. As no demand was raised by the Mining Engineer in his original order, the Appellate Authority could not have slapped such a huge demand without first issuing any notice to the petitioner. The impugned demand of interest @ 15% per month is clearly contrary to the principles of natural justice. 31. Having waded through the Rules of 2017 in their entirety, this Court is unable to find any such provision permitting the authorities under the Mining Act to levy interest or penalty as high as 15% per month. 32. The impugned demand of interest @ 15% per month is clearly contrary to the principles of natural justice. 31. Having waded through the Rules of 2017 in their entirety, this Court is unable to find any such provision permitting the authorities under the Mining Act to levy interest or penalty as high as 15% per month. 32. If the amount of 15% per month as imposed by the Appellate Authority is presumed to be an interest, the same is also impermissible in law because the maximum rate of interest given in the Rules of 2017 is 18%, as per Rule 77 of the Rules of 2017. 33. Without prejudice to above, if the petitioner’s case is considered in light of the provisions prevailing at the time of determination of Mining lease (05.10.2016) – Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1986”), then also, relevant provision in relation to penalty is, Rule 29(1)(b) and for interest, it is Rule 61. Both the provisions are reproduced hereinbelow:- “61 Rate of Interest:-Interest at the rate of 1[15%] shall be charged on all dues in respect of dead rent, royalty, quarry licence fee and royalty collection contract 2[or excess royalty collection contract amounts from the due date.] 29. Conditions of quarry licence:- (1) ….. …. (a) .…. …. (b) The licensee shall pay annual licence fee in advance to the Government on or before such date as specified by Mining Engineer/Assistant Mining Engineer. If the licence fee is not paid on the due date, the same shall be recoverable along with a penalty equivalent to 10% of the licence fee 3[up to a period of 3 months from the due date of payment. Failing which licence may be terminated after giving a 15 days notice.]” 34. The Rule 29(1)(b) of the Rules of 1986 envisages 10% penalty of the licence fee, while Rule 77 of the Rules talks of interest at the rate of 18%. The source of power to impose penalty of Rs.25,000/-or 50,000/-as enhanced by the Revisional authority can be traced in Rule 29(1)(b) of the Rules of 1986 or Rule 28(3)(ii) of the Rules of 2017, but in absence of any other provision, the penalty or interest by whatever name called to the tune of 15% per month cannot be countenanced. The source of power to impose penalty of Rs.25,000/-or 50,000/-as enhanced by the Revisional authority can be traced in Rule 29(1)(b) of the Rules of 1986 or Rule 28(3)(ii) of the Rules of 2017, but in absence of any other provision, the penalty or interest by whatever name called to the tune of 15% per month cannot be countenanced. Hence, even if the mining authorities were to impose any penalty, the same could not have exceeded 10% of the license fee for the period of default in payment upto three months. 35. Rule 61 of the Rules of 1986 so also Rule 77 of the Rules of 2017 provide interest @ 15% and 18% respectively, sans any specification as to whether the rate is per month or per annum. Though these rates are not shown to be annual rates but going through the scheme of the Rules, there can be no doubt that they have to be a per annum or annual rate of interest and not monthly rate. 36. As per this Court, Rule 61 of the Rules of 1986 being substantive provision for interest or rate of interest (15%), which has been substituted by the notification dated 18.12.2004 cannot be construed to be providing monthly rate of interest. If the rate of interest of 15% is taken as monthly rate, the same would be punitive, rather confiscatory, because in that case, when calculated annually it would come to be 180%. 37. According to this Court, in absence of any such provision for levy of interest or penalty, the action of infliction of amount at the rate of 15% per month, whether in the form of penalty or interest by the Appellate Authority is completely void and without jurisdiction. 38. The respondent No.3 was not justified in creating arbitrary and illegal demand against the petitioner by way of Annexure-7, which on the face of it is contrary to statutory provisions. The demand of licence fee, interest and other charges for the period after the termination of licence (31.03.2016) being illegal, deserves to be quashed while exercising the extra ordinary powers available to this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 39. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. 40. The demand of licence fee, interest and other charges for the period after the termination of licence (31.03.2016) being illegal, deserves to be quashed while exercising the extra ordinary powers available to this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 39. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. 40. The demand raised against the petitioner for the period after 31.03.2016 is hereby quashed; the order dated 05.10.2016 terminating petitioner’s licence has already been quashed by the Appellate Authority, which is hereby affirmed. 41. The respondent No.3 is directed to issue consequential demand notice to the petitioner for the consequential demand within a period of 15 days from today. It is hereby clarified that while demanding the due licence fee upto 31.03.2016, the respondent No.3 will be free to charge applicable interest as per Rule 77 of the Rules of 2017 and other charges, including penalty of Rs.50,000/- that was imposed/increased by the Secretary Mines by the order dated 14.08.2019. 42. The petitioner will be required to deposit the amount as calculated by the respondent No.3 within a period of 30 days of the receipt of demand notice. If the petitioner has any grievance qua the determination so made, he shall be free to avail remedies in accordance with law. 43. Having dictated the order aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the respondents be directed to restore petitioner’s quarry licence as the Appellate Authority had set aside the termination of the quarry licence by order dated 05.06.2018, and the same has been affirmed by the Revisional Authority. 44. In response to petitioner’s prayer, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that such relief cannot be granted at this stage, as the period of quarry licence, was only up to 31.03.2021. 45. 44. In response to petitioner’s prayer, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that such relief cannot be granted at this stage, as the period of quarry licence, was only up to 31.03.2021. 45. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in hands and considering that the order of termination of quarry licence dated 05.10.2016, which was set aside by the Appellate Authority has been maintained by the Revisional Authority and the fact that the petitioner had tendered a sum of Rs.4,40,000/-, meeting the outstanding demand against him, this Court deems it expedient and in the interest of justice to direct the Director Mines to consider petitioner’s representation (which he would be filing) for restoration/renewal or extension of his quarry licence for the period during which quarry licence remained closed due to the conduct of respondent No.3 and pending litigation. 46. In case, such representation along with certified copy of the order instant is filed within a period of four weeks from today, the Director Mines shall consider the same in accordance with law while taking into account the adjudication made hereinabove. 47. The petitioner shall handover a Demand Draft in sum of Rs.5 lacs drawn in the name of respondent No.3 before the Director Mines along with his representation and such amount being a tentative amount will be subsumed or adjusted against the total demand to be calculated by the respondent No.3. 48. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.