JUDGMENT : 1. The lawyers are abstaining from the work due to strike. 2. This civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “(i) The order impugned dated 23.07.2017 (Annexure-16) passed by the respondent appellate authority may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside. (ii) The interim order dated 16.08.2017 (An.13) may kindly be declared illegal and same be quashed and set aside; (iii) The amount so deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the said interim order dated 16.08.2017 (An.13) (under protest) may kindly be ordered to be refunded to the petitioners; (iv) The demand notice dated 01.06.2017 (Annexure-8) may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside; (v) The respondent authorities may be directed to complete the process of extension of the mining lease in the favour of the petitioner and to execute the rider agreement; (vi) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be granted and (vii) Award the costs of this writ petition to the petitioner against the respondents.” 3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, a mining lease (for mineral rhyolite – masonry stone – near Village Modibhakari Kharda, Tehsil Rohat, District Pali) was granted in favour of one Smt. Vidhya Devi w.e.f. 24.11.1995, for a period of 20 years. The said mining lease was mutated in favour of the petitioner on count of death of the said Smt. Vidhya Devi; an agreement was accordingly executed in favour of the petitioner on 18.09.2012. 3.1. The petitioner had applied for renewal of the mining lease on 04.11.2015, which is said to be pending; the petitioner had also applied for extension of the period of mining lease (from 24.11.2015 for ten years on 31.01.2014, and for the said purpose, the respondent no.3 had received the spot report dated 13.03.2014 from the concerned Mines Foreman, to the effect that the petitioner has not conducted any unauthorized mining within last three years, outside the lease area. 3.2. 3.2. However, the respondent no.3 on 14.10.2015 issued a notice inter alia mentioning therein that the Assistant Mining Engineer, Sojat City had conducted enquiry about the boundaries of the mining lease of the petitioner on 04.09.2015, whereupon it was found that 3654 metric tonnes of mineral has been excavated in an unauthorized manner, outside the A-B boundary line, which was violative of Rule 48 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, and thus, directed the petitioner to explain, within a period of 15 days from the date of issuance of such notice, as to why ten times royalty be not recovered from him. The petitioner vide letter dated 04.11.2015 submitted a reply stating therein that neither copy of panchmana nor the alleged enquiry report has been supplied to him, nor the alleged unauthorized excavation has been disclosed. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for copies of the panchnama and the inquiry report under the Right to Information Act and the respondent no.3 supplied the copy of said panchnama dated 04.09.2015. 3.3. The petitioner has submitted a representation dated 23.12.2015 before the Additional Director Mines (Vigilance), Jaipur for, among other things, cancellation of the aforementioned show cause notice. Thereafter, the Additional Director Mines (Vigilance), Jaipur vide letter dated 29.12.2015 considered the aforesaid representation and declined to accept the enquiry report and also directed that the enquiry be conducted by the Superintending Mining Engineer (Vigilance), Jodhpur. 3.4. The respondent no.3 on the basis of the aforesaid direction, addressed a letter dated 30.12.2015 to the respondent no.2, that since re-inquiry has been thought proper in the five matters, including that of the present petitioner, further proceedings should be kept pending. Subsequently, the respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 03.02.2016 directed to the Superintending Mining Engineer (Vigilance), Jodhpur to conduct enquiry in accordance with the aforementioned direction. 3.5. The respondent no.3 has however, without inquiry, proceeded to issue the impugned notice dated 01.06.2017 to the petitioner for recovery a sum of Rs.8,40,420/-and directed to comply with the said notice within period of 15/45 days, otherwise the mining lease in question shall be cancelled with forfeiture of security, failing which the mining lease was stipulated to be cancelled, with forfeiture of the security. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal along with stay application, against the impugned notice, before the respondent no.4 – Additional Director Mines, (Environment Development), Directorate of Mines and Geology, Rajasthan, Udaipur; the said authority neither heard the stay application nor decided the appeal; whereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing SBCWP No. 9330/2017 before this Hon’ble Court, at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, which was disposed vide order dated 08.08.2017, with a direction to the respondent no.4 to hear and decide the said appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably within the period of one month from receipt of the certified copy of the order, with a further direction to decide the stay application at the first instance. 3.6. The respondent no.4 vide order dated 16.08.2017 decided the stay application, while passing a conditional interim order, directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount of penalty with the Mining Engineer, Sojat City. In compliance of the said order, under protest, the petitioner filed an application dated 24.08.2017 along with demand draft of Rs.4,20,210/-(50% of the penalty amount). The petitioner filed representations dated 21.06.2017, 17.07.2017 and 10.08.2017 for quashing of the aforesaid demand. 3.7. Subsequently however, the respondent no.4 vide the impugned order dated 23.10.2017 decided the appeal, while remanding the matter back to the Mining Engineer, Sojat City to initiate the process for appointing the high level committee for re-inspection of the mining lease in question within the period of 60 days; such direction was made subject to the petitioner depositing the entire amount towards the demand notice, within the period of 30 days from the date of the said impugned order. 4. The petitioner present in person submitted that the impugned order was passed by the respondent no.4 with a direction to conduct fresh inspection by the concerned authority, but the said inspection has never been undertaken till date, and therefore the said impugned order is highly unreasonable and unjustified and without the jurisdiction. 5. The petitioner present in person further submitted that raising of the impugned demand against the petitioner was initiated on the basis of panchnama prepared in the year 2015 and the said panchnama has been prepared without any knowledge to the petitioner, as no notice regarding the said panchnama has been issued to the petitioner; therefore, the entire proceedings initiated by the respondents are not sustainable in eye of law. 6. 6. The petitioner present in person also submitted that the respondents have not extended the period of the mining lease of the petitioner, and the process for execution of the requisite agreement is still pending consideration before the respondents. He thus submitted that the impugned action on the part of the respondents is clearly violative, amongst others, of the Constitution of India. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Deepak Gehlot, Mining Engineer (Writs), Jodhpur, present in person on behalf of the respondents, opposed the aforesaid submissions made by the petitioner present in person, and submitted that the present petition is not maintainable because the petitioner was having an alternative remedy of preferring a revision under Rule 64 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereafter referred as Rules of the 2017) before the competent authority. The provision of law, as referred by the Mining Engineer (Writs), Jodhpur, is reproduced as hereunder:- “64. Revision.- (1) The Government, in respect of any order passed in appeal or otherwise under these rules by any officer, may on an application by an aggrieved party or of its own motion call for and examine the connected records for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such order, may confirm, modify or rescind such order. (2) A revision shall be filed within three months of the date of communication of the order: Provided that an application for revision may be admitted by the Government after the said period of three months if the Government is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not filing the revision application in time but the revision shall not be admitted after expiry of six month from the date of order revisioned against. (3) Every application for revision shall be made in Form 30 in duplicate and shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees five thousand.” 7.1. He further submitted that the copy of panchnama regarding the illegal mining has been provided to the petitioner on 06.07.2016 under Right to Information (RTI). 7.2. He also submitted that the respondent no.4 vide order dated 23.10.2017 directed the petitioner to deposit the complete demand amount as mentioned in the aforementioned notice within 30 days, whereupon the High Level Committee was to be constituted for re-inspection of the petitioner’s mining lease, but the petitioner did not comply with the said direction till date. 7.2. He also submitted that the respondent no.4 vide order dated 23.10.2017 directed the petitioner to deposit the complete demand amount as mentioned in the aforementioned notice within 30 days, whereupon the High Level Committee was to be constituted for re-inspection of the petitioner’s mining lease, but the petitioner did not comply with the said direction till date. Therefore, on that count, coupled with availability of the alternative remedy of revision, under the Rules of the 2017, the present petition deserves dismissal. 8. Heard the parties present in person as well as perused the record of the case. 9. At the outset, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in the case of M/s Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. Vs The State of Rajasthan & ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15678/2017, decided on 17.03.2023), which reads as under: - “Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Senior Counsel cum Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Pratyushi Mehta appearing on behalf of the respondents fairly submits that the controversy in question has already decided by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the matter of Param Prasad Charitable Trust Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.619/2022, decided on 01.08.2022. The judgment dated 01.08.2022 reads as follows: “Heard. This appeal arises out of order dated 24.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4065/2007 whereby the learned Single Judge, has dismissed the writ petition, relegating the appellant to avail alternative remedy of invoking revisional jurisdiction of the revisional authority constituted under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (for short 'the Rajasthan Stamp Act of 1998'). Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even though there exists an alternative remedy, present is a case of exceptional nature where writ petition could be entertained without insisting on exhaustion of alternative remedy. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the issue in the writ petition is with regard to the liability for payment of stamp duty. He would submit that the Supreme Court in the case of State of UP Vs. Ambrish Tandon & Ors. (2012) 5 SCC 566 as also order passed by this Court in the case of Orient Resort India Private Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and order dated 10.04.2015 in the case of Smt. Padmawati Vs. He would submit that the Supreme Court in the case of State of UP Vs. Ambrish Tandon & Ors. (2012) 5 SCC 566 as also order passed by this Court in the case of Orient Resort India Private Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and order dated 10.04.2015 in the case of Smt. Padmawati Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., having concluded the issue of law, there being no disputed fact, the learned Single Judge ought not to have relegated the appellants to avail alternative remedy which requires pre-deposit to the extent of 25% of recoverable amount as required under Section 65 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act of 1998 which will cause severe hardship. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Technimont Private Limited Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 2019 SC 4489 . He would also submit that in the factual backdrop in which the Supreme Court held that the parties should be relegated to avail alternative remedy as ordered in the case of Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2016) 13 SCC 305 are also distinguishable on facts. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the appellant has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy against the order passed by the authority in the matter of levy of stamp duty. He would submit that the scheme of pre-deposit cannot be said to be a reason to a matter to be decided while dealing with revision. In the absence of there being any exception made out either because of order being challenged for want of jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice relying upon the recent judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pushpa Sareen Vs. State of U.P 2015 (2) MWN (Civil) 129, learned AAG submits that the issue requires consideration and can not be said to be set at rest. He would further submit that the stamp duty is leviable on the market value which is required to be assessed, keeping in view various provisions contained in the Rajasthan Stamp Act of 1998 in the light of the definition of 'market value' as provided in Section 2 (XXIII) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998. He would further submit that the stamp duty is leviable on the market value which is required to be assessed, keeping in view various provisions contained in the Rajasthan Stamp Act of 1998 in the light of the definition of 'market value' as provided in Section 2 (XXIII) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998. He would further submit that the recitals of the sale deed are relevant consideration to carry out necessary assessment keeping in view, the market value. ………… Having considered the submissions made at bar by the counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the law which has been laid down in the case of Ansal Housing and Construction Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., Genpact India Pvt. Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner (Supra), as present is not a case of exceptional nature and further that we do not find that it would be a case where it would be almost impossible for the appellant to arrange the payment of pre-deposit to comply with the statutory requirement, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Before parting, this Court observe that all the observations which have been made by us are only for the purpose of determination as to whether the writ petition should be entertained or the appellant should be relegated to the alternative remedy. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed however, subject to the liberty as reserved to the appellant. ” This Court, after careful perusing the record of the case, finds that the precedent law laid down by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court, while keeping into consideration the judgment of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ambrish Tandon & Ors. (2012) 5 SCC 566 , is applicable in the present case also. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed with liberty to file the revision under Section 65 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act of 1998. The amount already deposited shall be adjusted against the pre-deposit to file the revision.” 10. This Court finds that the rider agreement in relation to the mining lease in question was executed in favour of the petitioner on 18.09.2012; before expiry of the lease period, he applied for renewal of mining lease and also applied for extension of mining lease period. This Court finds that the rider agreement in relation to the mining lease in question was executed in favour of the petitioner on 18.09.2012; before expiry of the lease period, he applied for renewal of mining lease and also applied for extension of mining lease period. Thereafter, the Assistant Mining Engineer, Sojat City has conducted inquiry of mining lease and found that 3654 metric tonnes of mineral has been excavated in an unauthorized manner, outside the lease boundaries. 11. This Court further finds that the petitioner filed the appeal and same was decided by respondent no.4 vide the impugned order dated23.10.2017, whereby the respondent no.4, while remanding the matter remanded back to the Mining Engineer, Sojat City to initiate the process for appointing the high level committee for re-inspection for enquiry of mining lease in question within the period of 60 days, directed deposition of the entire amount under demand within a period of 30 days. 12. This Court also finds that the State had framed the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, the Rule 64 whereof, as quoted hereinabove, clearly stated that in respect of any order passed in appeal or otherwise under these rules by any officer, the aggrieved party shall file a revision petition before the competent authority, within the period as stipulated therein. This Court further finds that sub-rule (5) of Rule 65 (procedure of appeal and revision) of the Rules of 2017 provides that “pending the final disposal of appeal or revision, the appellate or revisional authority may confirm, modify or set aside the order or pass such other order in relation thereto as it may deem just and proper”. 13. This Court observes that once the alternative remedy to file revision is available to the petitioner, then he at the first instance ought to have exhausted such statutory remedy, before approaching this Hon’ble Court. 14. This Court finds that the Rules of the 2017 itself, is a complete code, for dealing with the matters pertaining to the Mining Lease in the State of Rajasthan, which amongst other things, clearly provide for the alternative remedy under Rule 64 thereof; and in the present case the petitioner filed the appeal before respondent no.4 Additional Director Mines (Environment Development) Directorate of Mines and Geology, Udaipur, which, as mentioned above, was decided vide the impugned order dated 23.10.2017. However, without exhausting the alternative remedy under the Rules of 2017, the petitioner has directly approached this Court, which, in the given circumstances and Rule position was not the appropriate course on the part of the petitioner herein. 15. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and the judgment rendered in M/s. Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. (supra) as well as looking into the given factual matrix, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 16. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail the alternative remedy of revision under the Rules of 2017, for redressal of his grievance, who in turn, shall consider and decide the same, strictly in accordance with law. All pending applications stand disposed of.