ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:- (i) That the impugned order dated 28.12.2018 (Annex.11) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That all the subsequent proceedings initiated in pursuance of order dated 28.12.2018 (Annex.11) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (iii) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards the order dated 28.12.2018 (Annexure-11) passed by the Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department Rajasthan, Chittorgarh wherein it was categorically stated that the mining done by the petitioner did not come in the definition of illegal mining and that after 2010 the mining which has been done by the petitioner shall not come in the definition of illegal mining but the impugned orders dated 14.12.2018 (Annexure-10) passed by Superintending Engineer, Mines and Geology Department, Udaipur and order dated 28.12.2018 (Annexure-11) passed by Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department Chittorgarh, Rajasthan did not afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and while holding that the petitioner has conducted illegal mining, a demand notice of Rs.5,59,827,40/- has been raised. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner makes a submission that the impugned orders dated 14.12.2018 (Annexure-10) and 28.12.2018 (Annexure-11) are contrary to the stand of the Additional Director (Mines), Mines And Geology Department Rajasthan, Udaipur vide its letter dated 26.06.2018 (Annexure-17) wherein the petitioner has been held to be not falling in the definition of conducting illegal mining. The relevant part of the letter dated 26.06.2018(Annexure-17) reads as under:- ^^,e,elhvkj 1986 ds fu;e 15 ds vuqlkj dksbZ iV~Vk/kkjh fcuk l{ke vf/kdkjh dh vuqefr ds [kuu iV~Vs dks lcysV] eksjxst vFkok VªkaLkQj ugh dj ldrk gS vFkkZr~ ;fn iV~Vs/kkjh us fcuk foHkkx dh vuqefr ds [kuu iV~Vk cspku dk jkbMj ,sxzhesaV dj fn;k vr% bl nks"k ds fy;s [kuu iV~Vk [kf.Mr fd;k tk pqdk gSA jkbMj ,sxzhesaV ds i'pkr ,oa [kuu iV~Vk [kf.Mr gksus ds iwoZ tks Hkh [kuu dk;Z gqvk gS og lafonk fu’iknu ds rgr gqvk gS ,oa [kuu dk;Z Lohd`r [kuu iV~Vk {ks= esa gh gqvk gSA vr% fu;ekuqlkj mls voS/k [kuu ugha dgk tk ldrkA^^ 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-department is not in a position to refute the same however, draws the attention of this Court towards the order dated 17.05.2023 passed in SBCWP No.1194/2019 wherein the present petitioner had given challenge to the certain orders and the prayer is reproduced hereunder:- ”(i) That the order dated 15.12.2016 and 16.01.2910 (Annex.-10 & 11) may be declared illegal and mining lease No.79/15 issued in favour of the petitioner by the respondents vide order dated 11.12.2008 (Annex.01) may be allowed to grant in force and the petitioner may be permitted for mining in the authorized area; and (ii) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-department further submits that the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the relevant portion of the abovesaid order is reproduced hereunder:- “(18) This Court observes that the petitioner and the private respondent were having a prolonged dispute in regard to the power of attorney and the agreement entered amongst themselves which were in respect to the mining lease in-question. The short point involved in the controversy is that such agreement between the parties will constitute violation of the lease conditions and debarment of the parties to continue with the mining lease in contravention of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1986. The analogy drawn from the record reflects contravention of Rule 15. The concurrent finding arrived by the parties i.e. original and appellate are in tendum with the law and thus no cause of interference is made out. (19) This Court also observes that the petitioner in the pleadings of the writ petition has admitted that he entered into an agreement dated 13.08.2010. Once the petitioner himself is admitting, then there is no occasion for this Court to disbelieve that no such agreement was entered into by the petitioner and rather it was by fraud and deceit on the part of Shri Khurshid Alam. Once the petitioner himself is admitting, then there is no occasion for this Court to disbelieve that no such agreement was entered into by the petitioner and rather it was by fraud and deceit on the part of Shri Khurshid Alam. Also this fact cannot be denied that the petitioner moved an application dated 29.05.2015 before the Mining Department for transfer of mining lease in favour of M/s. Popular Minerals, Sawa, Chittorgarh and subsequently the application was withdrawn on 18.04.2016, after a delay of about ten months from the date of revocation of the power of attorney which was issued on 03.07.2015 in favour of Khurshid Alam. The petitioner has not given any reason for the delay of ten months. Even if M/s. Progressive & Popular Mineral Pvt Ltd. had withdrawn the suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 13.08.2010 as well as the appeal on 25.05.2017, no inference can be drawn that such agreement dated 13.08.2010 was a fraudulent document, particularly, when it bears the signatures of the petitioner’s son sons as well. The affidavit dated 29.10.2018 placed as Annex.13 clearly mentions that the agreement dated 13.08.2010 was entered between the petitioner and Popular Minerals, Sawa, Chittorgarh with the intention to transfer mining Patta No.79/2005 at Village Sahanva, Tehsil & District Chittorgarh belonging to Shri Indermal Ji in the name of the firm Popular Minerals, Sawa, Chittorgarh. Rule 15 of the Rules of 1986 permits assigning, sublet, mortgage or in any other manner transfer of the mining lease or any right, title or interest therein, with the previous consent in writing of the competent authority and in the present case there was no previous consent in writing taken by the petitioner while entering into an agreement dated 13.08.2010. (20) As an upshot of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant writ petition lacks merit. (21) The impugned order dated 15.12.2016 and 16.01.2010 (Annex.-10 & 11) and the mining lease, which was issued in favour of the respondents vide order dated 11.12.2008 (Annexure-1), do not suffer from any illegality or any infirmity whatsoever, warranting interference therein. (22) Accordingly, the instant writ petition as well as the stay application is dismissed as being devoid of merit. (23) All other pending applications also stand disposed of.” 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. (22) Accordingly, the instant writ petition as well as the stay application is dismissed as being devoid of merit. (23) All other pending applications also stand disposed of.” 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. This Court finds that the issue involved in the earlier writ petition of the petitioner has entirely different controversy than the issue raised in the present writ petition. 7. In view of the submissions made and particularly looking to the fact that while passing the impugned order dated 14.12.2018 (Annexure-10) by the Superintending Engineer, Mines and Geology Department, Udaipur and order dated 28.12.2018 (Annexure-11) passed by Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, the petitioner has not been afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing and the abovesaid orders are contrary to the letter dated 26.06.2018 passed by the Additional Director (Mines), Mines And Geology Department Rajasthan, Udaipur, therefore, the orders dated 14.12.2018 (Annexure-10) and 28.12.2018 (Annexure-11) are hereby quashed and set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner is granted liberty to file a detailed representation before the respondent No.5-The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department Chittorgarh, Rajasthan within a period of 14 days from today and upon receipt of such representation, the respondent No.5 is directed to pass a speaking order strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation while affording the petitioner reasonable opportunity of hearing. 9. The respondent-department is granted liberty to proceed against the petitioner if required while affording the petitioner a reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing and pass any order if so required, strictly in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.