ORDER : SBCWP No.12278/2012 : 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- “i) quash the order of cancellation dated 13.04.2005 (Annex.2), the appellate order dated 29.03.2010 (Annex.4) and the revisional order dated 25.04.2012 (Annex.5). ii) the mining lease of the petitioner may kindly be restored back in favour of the petitioner with effect from the date of taking over possession and the petitioner may be permitted to avail the remaining period of lease after taking over the possession till the expiry of the period of lease; and iii) any other appropriate order which is deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be also passed; and iv) cost of writ petition be ordered to be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted mining lease (ML No.20/87) for mineral Granite near Village Bithiya, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1986’) for period of ten years from 10.08.1988. The period was thereafter further extended from 10 to 20 years vide order dated 22.07.1998 upto 09.08.2008. The petitioner has been depositing dead-rent etc., on regular basis in accordance with law. In the month of December, 2004 the petitioner fell seriously ill and upon regaining health, the petitioner approached the office of respondent no.4 for depositing dead-rent etc. The respondents verbally informed the petitioner that since all the documents had been summoned by higher authorities, therefore, upon receiving the documents the petitioner may deposit the dead-rent. The petitioner approached the respondent Authorities several times but no heed was paid. The petitioner came to know that the respondents have passed an order while cancelling the mining lease way back on 13.04.2005 on account of non-compliance of notice dated 22.12.2004 whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.9188/-as installment and a penalty of Rs.637/-. The petitioner was never served upon the aforementioned notice, however, the petitioner immediately offered the due amount as raised by the respondents, however, the same was refused to be accepted. The petitioner was never served upon the aforementioned notice, however, the petitioner immediately offered the due amount as raised by the respondents, however, the same was refused to be accepted. The period of lease had expired on 21.07.2008 and, thus, the petitioner moved an application for renewal of mining lease but the application was not accepted on the ground that the mining lease has already been cancelled. The petitioner applied for certified copy of the order, which was duly furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no.2 and during the pendency of appeal, the petitioner had deposited the whole amount of dead rent through the challan with SBBJ Bank. The respondent no.2 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated 29.03.2010 (Annex.4). The petitioner thereafter preferred revision petition before the respondent no.1, which came to be dismissed vide order 25.4.2012 (Annex.5). Thus, the petitioner being aggrieved of order dated 13.04.2005 (Annex.2), order dated 29.03.2010 (Annex.4) and order dated 25.04.2012 (Annex.5) prefers this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.4 proceeded without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the event of mining lease being restored, the balance of the mining lease period, which was not availed due to cancellation of mining lease shall be permitted to be availed after setting aside the cancellation order and in such circumstance there would be no question of filing renewal application until and unless the lease is restored in favour of petitioner and this aspect has not been considered by both the Authorities below. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had invested huge amount and excavated the mining lease in-question by engaging heavy machineries and labours and the said mining lease in-question is the only source of livelihood of the petitioner and his family members. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) Mrs. Seema Raju Pol Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2016 2 AIIMR 887, decided on 09.03.2016. (2) Kamal Kant Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. passed in DBSAW No.882/2007 decided on 23.02.2023, (3) M/s Sojat Lime Company Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. passed in SBCWP No.14717/2016 decided on 06.11.2017. (4) M/s Neel Kanth Chemical Works, Jodhpur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2016 2 AIIMR 887, decided on 09.03.2016. (2) Kamal Kant Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. passed in DBSAW No.882/2007 decided on 23.02.2023, (3) M/s Sojat Lime Company Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. passed in SBCWP No.14717/2016 decided on 06.11.2017. (4) M/s Neel Kanth Chemical Works, Jodhpur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. passed in SBCWP No.1241/1980 decided on 10.10.1980. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that for the said illegal mining, the amount of mineral excavated with 10 times penalty was assessed at Rs.76,483/-and the same was recoverable from the petitioner and, therefore, he was issued notice dated 10.09.2004 but the petitioner did not deposit the said amount. He further submits that thereafter once again notice dated 01.12.2005 was served upon the petitioner for depositing the aforesaid amount of Rs.76,483/-with a warning that if the same is not deposited, then recovery proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 would be initiated but despite that the petitioner did not deposit the said amount. Learned counsel for the respondent-State also submits that the petitioner has not clarified as to the nature of disease he was suffering and the period as well and he has only indicated that in the year 2008 the petitioner was suffering from high blood pressure and unrest, which cannot be considered as a serious disease in order not to deposit the due amount. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner had duly deposited the dead-rent that was raised by the respondents vide office order dated 13.4.2005, for which the petitioner has placed on record the challan-receipt as Annex.-3 in the writ petition. The petitioner also placed on record the relevant illness certificate as Annex.1 dated 18.5.2009 indicating illness of the petitioner, thus, solely on the ground that the petitioner was not well, the petitioner could not deposit the due dead-rent in time. As per the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that before issuing office order dated 13.4.2005 cancelling the mining lease of the petitioner, the petitioner had not been issued a notice cannot be denied because the respondents in their reply have not placed on record any notice and, thus, the respondents have flouted the principles of natural justice and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the mining lease of the petitioner has been cancelled vide order dated 13.4.2005. 7. 7. The respondents in their reply submitted that the petitioner was duly issued notice dated 22.12.2004 sent through Registered A/D, served upon the petitioner on 27.12.2004 and since the petitioner did not respond to the notice issued by the respondents, the respondents had no option but to cancel the mining lease of the petitioner vide order dated 13.4.2005. However, the petitioner has made a categorical contention that the notice was never ever received or served upon the petitioner. It is also seen that nothing has been placed on record that such notice dated 22.12.2004 was duly served upon the petitioner. If the notice has not been served upon the petitioner and directly without affording an opportunity of hearing the impugned order dated 13.4.2005 (Annex.2) has been passed against the petitioner, then the same is dehors the provisions of Rule 30(2) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. Rule 30(3) of the Rules of 1986 is quoted hereunder : 30. “Cancellation of licence:- (1) The licensee shall abide by all terms and conditions of licence. Provided that the Mining Engineer / Assistant Mining Engineer incharge of the area may issue directions in respect of Mining methods, removal and disposal or over burden, stacking of minerals, payment of royalties and other connected matters. (2) If the licensee commits breach of any terms of licence or any provision of the rules or fails to comply with the directions given by the Mining Engineer / Assistant Mining Engineer within the period specified by him the competent authority may after giving 15 days notice to remedy the breach or to comply the directions, impose penalty not exceeding 2 [Rs.10000/-] or in the alternative may cancel the licence with forfeiture of security deposits and licence fee for the remaining period of the licence.” As per the provisions of Rule 30 of the Rules of 1986, if a licensee commits breach of any terms of licence or any provision of the rules or fails to comply with the directions given by the Mining Engineer / Assistant Mining Engineer within the period specified by him the competent authority may after giving 15 days notice to remedy the breach or to comply the directions, impose penalty not exceeding 2 [Rs.10000/-] or in the alternative may cancel the licence with forfeiture of security deposits and licence fee for the remaining period of the licence. However, in the present case, the notice has not been served upon the petitioner and, thus, the petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity of being heard and the respondents have admittedly flouted the mandatory condition of serving notice in order to comply with the directions given by the respondents. The respondent Authorities in their order dated 29.3.2010 (Annex.4) and order dated 25.04.2012 (Annex.5) have failed to consider the aspects; firstly that the petitioner had duly deposited dead rent of Rs.9188/-as raised by the respondents by way of office order dated 13.4.2005 and secondly that the petitioner was not served upon the notice, which is a mandatory provision as laid down under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1986. 8. As an upshot of the discussion made hereabove, this Court deems it appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned orders of cancellation of mining lease dated 13.04.2005 (Annex.2) passed by the Mining Engineer, Sojat City, the appellate order dated 29.03.2010 (Annex.4) passed by the Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur and the revisional order dated 25.04.2012 (Annex.5) passed by the Deputy Secretary (Mines). Thus, the respondents would be at liberty to impose penalty not exceeding twice the amount of dead-rent upon the petitioner with effect from the date of order dated 13.4.2005 (Annex.2) as per the terms laid down therein. The said amount of dead-rent shall be determined within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the petitioner shall deposit the said amount within one month thereafter. 9. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 10. Stay application as well as all pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.