ORDER : Nupur Bhati, J. [Civil Writ Petition No. 2720/2022] 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of Sh. Dilip Singh, the original allottee, who was allotted Quarry Licence No.215/A, challenging the order dated 15.12.2010 (Annex.3) and 28.12.2021 (Annex.6) passed by Assistant Mining Engineer, Makrana and Joint Secretary Mines, Jaipur respectively. The petitioners have also assailed the recovery proceedings initiated by Mining Department and prayed to declare the same illegal, arbitrary being violative of principles of natural justice. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the writ petition are that a Quarry Licence No.215/A came to be issued in favour of Sh. Dilip Singh, who is now represented by his legal representatives in Village Gunawati Range, Makrana, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur on 08.07.1985 for mineral marble. In the writ petition, the petitioners have alleged that the they are proceeding with mining operations strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules and the conditions of the quarry licence. 3. The petitioners have asserted in the writ petition, that the mine of the petitioners was inspected by Mines Foreman, Makrana on 07.10.2010 pursuant to notices dated 18.08.2010 & 23.09.2010 and ‘Mauka Panchnama’ (Annex.4) was prepared qua petitioners’ QL No.215/A. It is alleged that the said ‘Mauka Panchnama’ (Annex.4) dated 07.10.2010 was prepared in absence of the petitioner and no prior information/notice was ever issued to the petitioners for conducting of the site inspection and further the said ‘Mauka Panchnama’ (Annex.4) does not bear the signature of the petitioner, or record the presence of petitioner or their representative. On the basis of the ‘Mauka Panchnama’ (Annex.4), the Mining Engineer, Makrana issued a notice dated 04.11.2010 (Annex.1) narrating the fact of conducting of site inspection by mining authorities and allegation of mining activities being done illegally and that too outside the mining area allotted to the petitioner/Original lease Holder were levelled and thus proceedings under Rule 48 of the Rajasthan Minor Concession Rules, 1986 (‘Rules of 1986’) would be undertaken. Thus, by way of said notice dated 04.11.2010 (Annex.1), the petitioner was asked to submit reply within fifteen days, failing which ex-parte proceedings would be drawn against the petitioner under Rule 48 of the Rules of 1986. 4. Thus, by way of said notice dated 04.11.2010 (Annex.1), the petitioner was asked to submit reply within fifteen days, failing which ex-parte proceedings would be drawn against the petitioner under Rule 48 of the Rules of 1986. 4. On receipt of the notice dated 04.11.2010 (Annex.1), the petitioner submitted their reply on 16.11.2010 (Annex.2) while stating that no illegal mining operations were being committed by them and so far as mining activities beyond the mining area, if any noticed or found, to which the petitioners were not at all concerned. The petitioners in the reply stated that no mining activities are being undertaken on the disputed area since 2001 and the illegal mining activities are being done by some other persons. The petitioners further alleged that they were not supplied copy of the ‘Mauka Panchnama’ (Annex.4). 5. According to petitioners, without adverting to the reply (Annex.2) submitted by the petitioners, the Assistant Mining Engineer, Makrana proceeded to pass order dated 15.12.2010 (Annex.3) and observed that site inspection was conducted on 07.10.2010 and found petitioner’s involvement in the illegal mining. The Assistant Engineer, Makrana vide order dated 15.12.2010 (Annex.3) has imposed penalty of Rs.32,111/- upon the petitioner. 6. Being appalled by order dated 15.12.2010 (Annex.3), Sh. Dilip Singh (original allottee) preferred a revision petition, which was registered as Revision No.04/2011 before the Joint Secretary, Mines, Jaipur. 7. In the writ petition, the petitioners have alleged that during pendency of the revision, original allottee Sh. Dilip Singh expired and, therefore, an application (Annex.7) under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC was preferred by the legal representatives of Sh. Dilip Singh, however, the Joint Secretary, Mines, Jaipur without taking the legal representatives of Sh. Dilip Singh, proceeded to dismiss the revision petition preferred by the petitioners vide order dated 28.12.2021 (Annex.6) while deciding other connected appeal(s). According to petitioners, the facts and grounds raised in the revision were not at all dealt with or considered by the appellate authority while passing the order impugned dated 28.12.2021 (Annex.6). 8. Thus, the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition assailing the validity of the orders dated 15.12.2010 (Annex.3) and 28.12.2021 (Annex.6) passed by Assistant Mining Engineer, Makrana and Joint Secretary Mines, Jaipur respectively. 9. 8. Thus, the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition assailing the validity of the orders dated 15.12.2010 (Annex.3) and 28.12.2021 (Annex.6) passed by Assistant Mining Engineer, Makrana and Joint Secretary Mines, Jaipur respectively. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the orders impugned passed by the authorities below are illegal, arbitrary and have passed without considering the reply filed by the petitioner and the grounds set out in the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that while passing the order dated 15.12.2010 (Annex.3), the Assistant Mining Engineer, Makrana has failed to consider the provisions of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 in its correct perspective. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that as per the report dated 28.02.2010 of the Mines Foreman, Makrana, the petitioner was not remotely found involved in illegal mining activities and the ‘Mauka Panchnama’ dated 07.07.2010 was prepared in absence of the petitioner and the same was made on the basis of complaint filed by politically influential persons. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that before conducting the site inspection, the petitioner was never issued any notice or was afforded opportunity of being heard. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that revisional authority has also erred in passing the order dated 28.12.2021 (Annex.6), as the revisional authority has not considered the material placed before it and the arguments advanced on behalf of petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the revisional authority has proceeded to decide the revision with other matters and has not even dealt with the facts and grounds raised in the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that no reasons have been assigned for disbelieving the stand taken by the petitioners in the reply and in the revision. 11. Counsel for the petitioner while relying upon order passed by this Court in Saroj Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1993 (2) WLC Raj 745 submits that the Mining Engineer has not arrived at a finding that how the petitioner is concerned with the illegal mining activities and what was the basis for imposing huge penalty upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that approach of the authority passing quasi-judicial order is required to be reasonable, however, without considering the stand and grounds raised by the petitioner, the impugned orders have been passed by the respondent authorities. 12. Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that approach of the authority passing quasi-judicial order is required to be reasonable, however, without considering the stand and grounds raised by the petitioner, the impugned orders have been passed by the respondent authorities. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the revisional authority has not even decided the application filed by the petitioners under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC and without even taking the legal representatives of deceased allottee, straight away the revision petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed on merits. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the submissions made herein above prayed that the orders impugned be quashed and set aside. 14. On the other hand, the respondents have filed reply to the writ petition while denying the averments averred. Learned Counsel for the respondents have submitted that the petitioners were found involved in illegal mining, inasmuch as the petitioners were carrying mining operations outside the allotted quarry area and various complaints with regard to illegal mining activities were made against the petitioners. While adverting to the ‘Mauka Panchnama’ (Annex.4), it is alleged that a pit ad-measuring 15’ x 8’ x 8’ was found whereby the petitioner excavated and dispatched the mineral unauthorizedly, in utter violation of Section 4 (1) (1A) of the MMDR Act, 1957, which attracts imposition of penalty as per Section 21 of the Act of 1957. 15. It is further submitted by the respondents that after preparation of ‘Mauka Panchnama’ (Annex.4), the petitioner was issued notice dated 04.11.2010 (Annex.1) and a reply thereto was submitted by the petitioner, however, the petitioner failed to satisfy the respondents authorities with respect to unauthorized mining being done by them outside the quarry area. Thus, by filing reply to writ petition, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the ‘Mauka Panchnama’ (Annex.4) it was specifically recorded by Senior Mines Foreman of the respondent Department that pursuant to correspondences dated 18.08.2010 and 23.09.2010, the Mine No.215/A situated at Gunwati Range allotted to Sh. Dilip Singh ad-measurng 150’ x 100’ was inspected, and it was found that towards North-East corner, under cutting mining activities were carried out by the petitioner, which was beyond the mining area allotted to the petitioner. Dilip Singh ad-measurng 150’ x 100’ was inspected, and it was found that towards North-East corner, under cutting mining activities were carried out by the petitioner, which was beyond the mining area allotted to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the instant writ petition, the petitioner has failed to rebut the contents of the ‘Mauka Panchnama’ (Annex.4) and have not even challenged the same, either before the respondent authorities or before this Court as well. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the revisional authority after considering the record has found the petitioner and other persons, viz. S/Sh. Samundra Singh, Ummed Singh, Dashrath Singh and Mohan Singh were found involved in illegal mining activities beyond the mining area allotted under QL No.215/A of Gunawati Range, Makrana and an FIR was also registered. Furthermore, a caution notice dated 10.10.2002 was also issued to the petitioner, and the reply to the same was found to be satisfactory by the respondent Department and it was only after determination of the amount, recovery proceedings for illegal mining activities were rightly initiated. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that on account of illegal mining excavation being undertaken by the petitioners, houses of the nearby residents got damaged and further various complaints were made in this regard. So far as the plea raised by the petitioners that they were not taken on record in the revision as legal representatives of Sh. Dllip Singh is concerned, counsel for the respondents submits that in the order impugned dated 28.12.2021 (Annex.6), the petitioners have already been taken on record as legal heirs of Sh. Dilip Singh and no prejudice has at all been caused to the petitioners by not taking them on record in the revision filed. 18. Learned counsel for the respondents thus prayed that the writ petition deserves dismissal as the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 19. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 20. 18. Learned counsel for the respondents thus prayed that the writ petition deserves dismissal as the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 19. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 20. This Court finds that various complaints were made by the complainant regarding illegal mining activities being undertaken by the petitioner beyond the mining area allotted and thus pursuant to correspondences dated 18.08.2010 and 23.09.2010, the mining area of the petitioner i.e. QL No.215/A was inspected by the mining authorities and thereafter ‘Mauka Panchnama’ (Annex.4) was prepared by the Senior Mines Foreman, Makrana, whereby it was found that towards North-Earth corner of the mining lease allotted to original allottee, under cutting mining activities were carried out by the petitioner, which was beyond the mining area allotted to the petitioners. On account of illegal mining being undertaken by the petitioner, damage was caused not only to the public road but also public safety as the houses of nearby residents of the vicinity were also damaged. 21. This Court also considered Rule 54 of the Rules of 2017, which inter-alia provides that no person shall undertake any prospecting or mining operations in any area without holding any mineral concession, permit or any other permission granted or permitted under these rules, as the case may be and shall not dispatch mineral from the mines, except from the quarry licenced area; and further whoever contravenes the provisions of Sub-Rule (1) and (2) of Rule 54, he/she shall be punished with imprisonment with five years or with fine, or both. Rule 54 of the Rules of 2017 is reproduced hereas under:- “54. Illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals.- (1) No person shall undertake any prospecting or mining operations in any area without holding any mineral concession, permit or any other permission granted or permitted under these rules, as the case may be and shall not dispatch mineral from the mines, except from the quarry licenced area or bricks, without valid rawanna or transit pass. (2) No person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of these rules. (2) No person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of these rules. (3) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-rule (1) and (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to five lacs rupees, or with both: Provided that the Additional Director Mines, Superintending Mining Engineer, Superintending Mining Engineer(vigilance), Mining Engineer, Mining Engineer (vigilance), Assistant Mining Engineer, Assistant Mining Engineer (vigilance), Mines Foreman, Surveyor or any other officer or official authorised by the Government, Director or Additional Director Mines may either before or after the institution of the prosecution, compound the offence committed in contravention of the sub-rule (1) and (2) on payment of cost of mineral and compound fee as mentioned below:- S. No. Vehicle/Equipment Compound 1. Tractor trolley Twenty five 2. Truck/Dumper/any other vehicles gross vehicle weight up to sixteen tonnes up to sixteen tonnes (as per registration certificate of the vehicles)] and Fifty thousand 3. [Truck/Dumper/any other vehicles gross vehicle weight more than sixteen more than sixteen tonnes (as per registration certificate of the vehicles) and] Wire saw, crane, excavator, loader, power hammer, compressor, drilling machine etc. One lacs Note: Cost of the mineral shall be taken as ten times of royalty in lieu of rent, royalty, compensation for environmental degradation and tax chargeable on the land occupied without lawful authority, etc.. Provided that the amount of compound fee in cases other than specified as above shall not be less than rupees twenty thousand and shall be in addition to the cost of mineral. (4) Where any person trespasses on any land in contravention of the provisions of sub-rule (1), such trespasser may be served with an order of eviction by the Additional Director Mines, Superintending Mining Engineer, Superintending Mining Engineer (vigilance), Mining Engineer, Mining Engineer (vigilance), Assistant Mining Engineer, Assistant Mining Engineer (vigilance), District Collector, Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsildar, Deputy Conservator of Forest (in forest land), Assistant Conservator of Forest (in forest land), Regional Forest Officer (in forest land), Revenue Intelligence Officer of State Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (SDRI), Mines Foreman, Surveyor or any other officer or official authorised by the Government, Director or Additional Director Mines in this behalf. (5) Whenever any person, without a lawful authority, raises any mineral from any land other than under any mineral concession or any other permission and for that purpose bring on the land any tool, equipment, vehicle or other thing, such tool, equipment, vehicle etc. along with mineral, if any, may be seized by the authorities mentioned in sub-rule (4) who shall give a receipt to the person from whose possession the property or mineral is seized: Provided that every officer seizing any property or mineral under this rule may handover the property or mineral so seized to the nearest police station or police chauki. Provided further that the seized vehicle, equipment or mineral may be released after deposition of cost of mineral along with the compound fees as specified in sub-rule (3). Provided also that where mineral so raised has already been dispatched or consumed, the authorities mentioned in sub-rule (3) shall recover cost of mineral along with the compound fees as specified in sub-rule (3). Provided also that where vehicle, equipment or mineral so seized is not released, the officer seizing the property or mineral shall make a report of such seizure within seventy two hours to his superior officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. (6) All property seized under this rule shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of Magistrate if the amount equal to ten times of royalty in lieu of cost of mineral, rent, royalty, compensation for environmental degradation and tax chargeable on the land occupied without lawful authority, etc. is not paid by the trespasser within a period of three months from the date of commission of such offence or when the recoveries are not affected by that time: Provided that on payment of these dues within the said period of three months, all properties seized shall be ordered to be released and shall be handed over to the trespasser or the owner of the property. (7) Where the person committing an offence under these rules is a company registered under Companies Act, every person who at the time when the offence was committed, was incharge and was responsible to the company for conduct of the business of the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished accordingly: (8) The mines, revenue, police and transport department shall made co-ordinated efforts to vigil illegal mining or transportation of the mineral.” 22. This Court finds that in the instant case, the Assistant Mining Engineer and the Revisional Authority both have concurrently found that the petitioners were involved in illegal mining activities, inasmuch as the petitioners have carried out mining activities beneath the mining area allotted to them and no satisfactory explanation has been furnished by them. The petitioners have not challenged the ‘Mauka Panchnama’ (Annex.4) in this writ petition and have only assailed the orders impugned passed by the respondents authorities despite the fact that the Mauka Panchnama (Annexure-4) is the sole basis of passing the impugned orders dated 15.12.2010 (Annex.3) and 28.12.2021 (Annex.6). 23. In view of above discussion, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned order dated 15.12.2010 (Annex.3) and 28.12.2021 (Annex.6) passed by Assistant Mining Engineer, Makrana and Joint Secretary Mines, Jaipur respectively. 24. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is, hereby dismissed. No costs. Stay Petition also stands dismissed. [Civil Writ Petition No. 1325/2022] 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 23.09.2014 (Annex.24) passed by Mining Engineer, Makrana and the order dated 31.01.2019 (Annex.25) passed by Additional Director, Mines and the order dated 28.12.2021 (Annex.28) passed by Joint Secretary, Mines, Jaipur. The petitioners have also assailed the recovery proceedings initiated by Mining Department and prayed to declare the same illegal, arbitrary being violative of principles of natural justice. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the writ petition are that a Quarry Licence No.215/A came to be issued in favour of Sh. Dilip Singh, who is now represented by his legal representatives in Village Gunawati Range, Makrana, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur on 08.07.1985 for mineral marble. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the writ petition are that a Quarry Licence No.215/A came to be issued in favour of Sh. Dilip Singh, who is now represented by his legal representatives in Village Gunawati Range, Makrana, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur on 08.07.1985 for mineral marble. In the writ petition, the petitioners have alleged that the they are proceeding with mining operations strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules and the conditions of the quarry licence. 3. The Mining Engineer, Makrana issued a notice dated 11.09.2001 (Annex.1) to the petitioner stating therein that site of the quarry was inspected by Mines Foreman, wherein it was found that safety measures, as required to be adopted, were found lacking and illegal mining outside the area sanctioned were levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner was thus called upon to submit his explanation. It is alleged that on 14.09.2001 the petitioner submitted reply (Annex.2) detailing out therein that all safety measures were adopted and that no mining activities were being conducted by him, and even if there was any illegal mining, he was not at all connected with the same. 4. After the reply to initial notice dated 11.09.2001 was filed, the Mining Engineer, Makrana issued another notice dated 18.09.2002 (Annex.3) to the petitioner, wherein it was stated that petitioners have carried out mining activities beneath the mining area allotted to them and the petitioner was not made to stop mining operations. Thus, a recovery notice of Rs.68,98,769/- was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to submit his reply within fifteen days. The petitioner submitted reply to said notice on 23.10.2002 (Annex.4). 5. The Mining Engineer (Recovery), Makrana after considering the reply filed by the petitioner passed order dated 04.08.2004 (Annex.5) directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.68,98,769/- within fifteen days. 6. The petitioner assailed the order dated 04.08.2004 (Annex.5) by filing a revision before the State Government under Rule 47 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The revisional authority after considering the reply the Mining Engineer by its order dated 02.12.2004 (Annex.6) proceeded to allow the revision filed by the petitioner and set aside the demand raised against the petitioner while holding the same to be illegal. The revisional authority after considering the reply the Mining Engineer by its order dated 02.12.2004 (Annex.6) proceeded to allow the revision filed by the petitioner and set aside the demand raised against the petitioner while holding the same to be illegal. The revisional authority remanded the matter back to the Mining Engineer to re-examine the matter after considering the documents and to pass speaking order within a period of two months. 7. After passing of the order dated 02.12.2004 (Annex.6), the petitioner filed detailed representation with all relevant documents and sought opportunity of hearing. The petitioner has also stated that a notice dated 30.01.2008 (Annex.8) came to be issued to S/ Sh. Ratan Singh, Samundra Singh, Hanuman Ram, Jagannath Ram while referring the illegal mining done by them and an amount of Rs.68,98,791/- was sought to be recovered from them. 8. The Mining Engineer, Makrana, thereafter proceeded to issue warrant of attachment dated 07.06.2008 (Annex.9) and a proclamation of sale dated 26.12.2008 (Annex.10). The aforesaid two orders were assailed by the petitioner by filing writ petition before this Court, being SBCWP No.1425/2009, which writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 25.02.2009 (Annex.11) while observing that the Mining Engineer was under an obligation to make compliance of the order passed by the Deputy Secretary (Mines), Jaipur, and granted liberty to petitioner to file representation before the Deputy Secretary, who in turn was directed to decide the representation within a period of two weeks from the date of filing such representation. 9. After passing of the order dated 25.02.2009 (Annex.11), the petitioner submitted representation (Annex.12) before the Deputy Secretary (Mines), Jaipur. The Deputy Secretary (Mines) vide its order dated 17.12.2009 (Annex13) directed the Mining Engineer, Makrana to pass detailed speaking order in pursuance of the order dated 02.12.2004 earlier passed by it. 10. Thereafter, the Mining Engineer, Makrana, vide order dated 13.05.2010 (Annex.14) after hearing the parties and considering the material available on record, observed that S/Sh. Ummed Singh, Jagannath Ram, Samundra Singh, Dashrath Singh and Ratan Singh were found involved in the illegal mining, however, there was tacit consent of the petitioner in such illegal mining activities, being neighbour of these persons. Thereafter, the Mining Engineer, Makrana, vide order dated 13.05.2010 (Annex.14) after hearing the parties and considering the material available on record, observed that S/Sh. Ummed Singh, Jagannath Ram, Samundra Singh, Dashrath Singh and Ratan Singh were found involved in the illegal mining, however, there was tacit consent of the petitioner in such illegal mining activities, being neighbour of these persons. Thereafter,the petitioner upon coming to know of passing of order dated 13.05.2010 appeared before the Mining Engineer, Makrana and apprised him of the fact situation and stated that he has wrongly been implicated on the basis of tacit consent. 11. The Mining Engineer, Makrana thereafter issued order dated 02.12.2020 (Annex.15) under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.11,49,825/- and to appear before it on 03.01.2011. The petitioner thereafter submitted detailed submissions before the Mining Engineer, Makrana on 30.12.2010. 12. Being aggrieved of the orders dated 13.05.2010 and 02.12.2010 the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as SBCWP No.1030/2011. In the aforesaid writ petition, initially an interim order was granted on 11.02.2011 and the said writ petition was thereafter allowed vide order dated 03.02.2014 (Annex.16) while setting aside the orders impugned dated 13.05.2010 and 02.12.2010. The Mining Engineer was directed to pass a speaking order afresh after considering the submissions made by the petitioner in accordance law within a period of three months. 13. The petitioner thereafter appeared before the Mining Engineer, Makrana and apprised him about the order dated 03.02.2014 being passed by this Court. The petitioner filed a detailed reply with relevant documents on 25.06.2014. The petitioner also submitted a family settlement deed arrived at between the parties. The petitioner also brought on record copy of report of the Mauka Commissioner dated 15.09.2009. 14. The petitioners have also alleged that though the then Mining Engineer was transferred on 19.09.2014, however, the Mining Engineer, Makrana vide its order dated 23.09.2014 (Annex.24) proceeded to hold the petitioner and his brother, namely, Samundra Singh liable to the illegal mining and imposed penalty of Rs.68,58,779/- upon them. 15. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 23.09.2014 (Annex.24), preferred appeal before the Additional Director, Mines (Appellate Authority). However, the appellate authority vide order dated 31.01.2019 (Annex.25) proceeded to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner. 16. 15. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 23.09.2014 (Annex.24), preferred appeal before the Additional Director, Mines (Appellate Authority). However, the appellate authority vide order dated 31.01.2019 (Annex.25) proceeded to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner. 16. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision challenging the orders passed by the Mining Engineer, Makrana and Additional Director, Mines before the Joint Secretary, Mines Secretariat, Jaipur. The revisional authority vide its order dated 28.12.2021 (Annex.28) dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. 17. Thus, the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition assailing the validity of the orders dated 23.09.2014 (Annex.24) passed by Mining Engineer, Makrana and the order dated 31.01.2019 (Annex.25) passed by Additional Director, Mines and the order dated 28.12.2021 (Annex.28) passed by Joint Secretary, Mines, Jaipur. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the orders impugned passed by the authorities below are illegal, arbitrary and have passed without considering the reply filed by the petitioner and the grounds set out in the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though copy of family settlement was placed on record, according to which the petitioners were conducting the mining activities in their validly allotted area, however, the same was not at all considered by the respondent authorities while passing the orders impugned. He also submits that the petitioners have erected a wall of 10’ height while leaving 15’ space in their validly allotted mining lease and according to family settlement, portion of north side of the quarry license No.215A came into the share of Samandra Singh and, therefore, the petitioners have wrongly been held liable for the illegal mining operations by the respondents and there was no tacit consent of the petitioner in the illegal mining activities being undertaken by other persons. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that for the alleged illegal mining activities, an FIR was lodged against the persons concerned, however, FR was proposed qua the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioners were not found involved in illegal mining activities. 19. Counsel for the petitioner while relying upon order passed by this Court in Saroj Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1993 (2) WLC Raj 745 submits that the Mining Engineer has not arrived at a finding that as how the petitioner is concerned with the illegal mining activities and what was the basis for imposing huge penalty upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the further submits that approach of the authority while passing quasi-judicial order is required to be reasonable, however, without considering the stand and grounds raised by the petitioner, the impugned orders have been passed by the respondent authorities. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the detailed representation alongwith relevant documents were submitted before the Mining Engineer, however, the same have not been considered and while passing orders impugned imposing penalty, it was mandatorily required of the authority passing such order to give reasons for being not satisfied with the reply filed by the petitioners. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the submissions made herein above prayed that the orders impugned be quashed and set aside. 22. On the other hand, the respondents have filed reply to the writ petition while denying the averments averred. In the reply, the respondents have stated that the petitioners were found involved in illegal mining, inasmuch as the petitioners were carrying mining operations outside the allotted quarry area and various complaints with regard to illegal mining activities were made against the petitioners. While adverting to the inspection report, it is alleged that the petitioner was found involved in illegal mining activities, thereby the petitioner excavated and dispatched the mineral unauthorizedly, which was in utter violation of Section 4 (1) (1A) of the MMDR At, 1957 and attracts imposition of penalty as per Section 21 of the Act of 1957. 23. In the reply, it is further stated by the respondents that after preparation of site inspection report, the petitioner was issued notice and a reply thereto was submitted by the petitioner, however, the petitioner failed to satisfy the respondents authorities with respect to unauthorized mining being done by them outside the quarry area. Thus, by filing reply to writ petition, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 24. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioners have been found carrying out illegal mining operations outside their mining and quarry area and have also caused damage to the public road and safety and moreover, various complaints have been made by the villagers against the illegal and unauthorised mining done by the petitioners. 24. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioners have been found carrying out illegal mining operations outside their mining and quarry area and have also caused damage to the public road and safety and moreover, various complaints have been made by the villagers against the illegal and unauthorised mining done by the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners have not satisfied the authority regarding unauthorised mining carried out by them outside the quarry area and also submits that as per the provisions of the MMDR Act 1957 and MMCR 2017 excavation, storage and transportation of mineral without legal license is a serious offence against the petitioner. 25. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that complaints for illegal mining against the petitioner were received by the mining engineer and therefore, the site inspection was done on 21.08.2002 wherein it was found that the petitioners were indulged in illegal mining. He also submits that by findings of the appellate and the revisional authority it is evident that the petitioner has not approached the Hon’ble Court with clean hands and the proceedings that have been drawn by the respondents are legal, valid and justified. 26. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 27. This Court finds that a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.02.2014 (Annex.16) allowed the writ petition [SBCWP No.1030/2011] preferred by the petitioner while setting aside the orders dated 13.05.2010 and 02.12.2010, inasmuch as the material placed by the petitioner before the Mining Engineer was not considered objectively and the Mining Engineer was directed to pass a speaking order afresh after objective consideration of the submissions made by the petitioner. The relevant portion of the order dated 03.02.2014 (Annex.16) passed in SBCWP No.1030/2011 reads as under : “9. A bare perusal of the order impugned reveals that the Mining Engineer has held the petitioner guilty of violation of Rule 48 of the Rules by merely recording its ipse dixit. The submissions made by the petitioner and the documents placed on record have not been considered objectively. As a matter of fact, the Mining Engineer while taking note of the earlier proceedings, has passed the order in the following terms: 10. The submissions made by the petitioner and the documents placed on record have not been considered objectively. As a matter of fact, the Mining Engineer while taking note of the earlier proceedings, has passed the order in the following terms: 10. Suffice it to say that the cryptic order passed by the Mining Engineer defying the directions issued by the Revisional Authority as also by this court, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 11. In the result, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The orders impugned dated 13.5.10 and 2.12.10 passed by the Mining Engineer are quashed. The Mining Engineer is directed to pass as peaking order afresh after objective consideration of the submissions made by the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date ofreceipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall appear before the Mining Engineer on 3.3.14. It needs to be observed that any further defiance of the directions issued by this Court shall be viewed seriously and dealt with strictly.” 28. After passing of the order dated 03.02.2014 (Annex.16), the Mining Engineer alongwith Mines Foreman inspected the site (Mine No.215/A) on 17.07.2014 in the presence of the petitioners and in unequivocal terms found that illegal mining was carried out towards the Bara (Land) situated towards northern side of the mine in question, which was beyond the mine allotted to Sh. Dilip Singh and boundary wall was erected by the petitioner and a gate was also installed there. The Mining Engineer also found that the said ‘Bara’, as per the documentary evidence available on record, was in the joint ownership of S/Sh. Ratan Singh, Samundra Singh and Dilip Singh (father of present petitioners) all sons of Sh. Ganga Singh, and nobody could enter into said ‘Bara’ without prior permission of these persons. The Mining Engineer further observed that illegal mining activities were conducted through the crane installed at petitioner’s mine, which fact was also recorded in the report prepared on 21.08.2002. Thus, the Mining Engineer has rightly observed that since the mine in question was surrounded by erecting boundary wall, therefore, nobody else except the petitioners could excavate in the land situated outside the mine allotted and no information of such illegal mining was given to the Department by the petitioners. 29. Thus, the Mining Engineer has rightly observed that since the mine in question was surrounded by erecting boundary wall, therefore, nobody else except the petitioners could excavate in the land situated outside the mine allotted and no information of such illegal mining was given to the Department by the petitioners. 29. This Court also finds that the petitioners were granted ample opportunity to plead their case before the Mining Engineer and it was for the first time that the petitioners pleaded that the illegal mining activities were done by S/Sh. Ratan Singh, Samundera Singh, Hadmanram and Jagannath Ram, qua whom he (Dilip Singh) never complained of to the Mining Department. Other persons, namely, Samundra Singh, Dashrath Singh and Ratan Singh (Smt. Sada Kanwar) were also heard. The Mining Engineer after considering the entire material available on record and after conducting inspection afresh found that S/Sh. Ummed Singh, Dashrath Singh, Smt. Sada Kanwar W/o Sh. Ratan Singh and Sh. Jagannath Ram were not found to have conducted the illegal mining. The Mining Engineer thus rightly held the petitioner (Dilip Singh) and his brother, namely, Samundra Singh guilty of committing illegal mining activities beyond the mining area. The relevant portion of the order dated 23.09.2014 (Annex.24) reads as under : 30. In view of above findings arrived at the Mining Engineer, Makrana vide its order dated 23.09.2014, this Court also finds that the appeal preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 23.09.2014 (Annex.24) has rightly been dismissed by the Additional Director, Mines (Appellate Authority) vide order dated 31.01.2019 (Annex.25). The Additional Director after taking into consideration all the relevant material available before it and while affording an opportunity of hearing has concurred with the findings of Mining Engineer. This Court also finds that vide order dated 28.12.2021 (Annex.28) while dismissing revision preferred by the petitioners against the orders dated 23.09.2014 (Annex.24) and 31.01.2019 (Annex.25) no error has been committed by the Joint Secretary, Mines Secretariat, Jaipur, as the said authority has also discussed the each and every grounds/submissions advanced by the petitioners. This Court also observes that in the order dated 28.12.2021 (Annex.28), the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of Sh. Dilip Singh have been heard and only thereby the revision filed by them has been decided. 31. This Court also observes that in the order dated 28.12.2021 (Annex.28), the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of Sh. Dilip Singh have been heard and only thereby the revision filed by them has been decided. 31. In view of above discussion and the three concurrent findings arrived at by the authorities of the Mining Department, this Court finds no force in the writ petition and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. Stay Petition and other misc. application, if any pending, also stands dismissed. [Civil Writ Petition No. 2908/2022] 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of Sh. Dilip Singh, the original allottee, who was allotted Quarry Licence No.215/A, challenging the orders dated 08.09.2010 (Annex.8) and 28.12.2021 (Annex.11) passed by Mining Engineer, Makrana and Joint Secretary Mines, Jaipur respectively. The petitioners have also assailed the recovery proceedings initiated by Mining Department and prayed to declare the same illegal, arbitrary being violative of principles of natural justice. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the writ petition are that a Quarry Licence No.215/A came to be issued in favour of Sh. Dilip Singh, who is now represented by his legal representatives in Village Gunawati Range, Makrana, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur on 08.07.1985 for mineral marble. In the writ petition, the petitioners have alleged that the they are proceeding with mining operations strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules and the conditions of the quarry licence. 3. The petitioners have asserted in the writ petition that the Senior Mines Foreman, Makrana conducted inspection of petitioners’ mine on 28.04.2010 and placed its report dated 28.04.2010 (Annex.1) before the Mining Engineer, Makrana. On the basis of said report dated 28.04.2010, the Mining Engineer, Makrana proceeded to pass order dated 13.05.2010 (Annex.2). The said order was passed by the Mining Engineer, Makrana in compliance of the order dated 17.09.2009 issued to it by the Joint Secretary, Mines, Jaipur directing the Mining Engineer, Makrana to pass speaking order. By passing the order dated 13.05.2010 (Annex.2), the Mining Engineer prima facie found involvement of S/Sh. Ummed Singh, Jagannath Ram, Samundra Singh, Dashrath Singh & Ratan Singh, and the petitioner was not found involvement in carrying out illegal mining activities. However, merely because Sh. By passing the order dated 13.05.2010 (Annex.2), the Mining Engineer prima facie found involvement of S/Sh. Ummed Singh, Jagannath Ram, Samundra Singh, Dashrath Singh & Ratan Singh, and the petitioner was not found involvement in carrying out illegal mining activities. However, merely because Sh. Dilip Singh (petitioner) was the owner of adjacent mine, therefore, for the illegal mining carried out by erring persons, there was tacit consent of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner upon coming to know of passing of order dated 13.05.2010 appeared before the Mining Engineer, Makrana and apprised him of the fact situation and stated that he has wrongly been implicated on the basis of tacit consent. The Mining Engineer, Makrana however, gave out that he has distributed the amount of penalty (Rs.69,98,769/-) amongst the petitioner and other erring persons, who were found involved in carrying out illegal mining and the petitioner was held liable to pay a sum of Rs.11,49,795/-. The Mining Engineer (Recovery), Makrana thereafter issued an order dated 04.08.2010 (Annex.3) under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and thereby directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.11,49,795/- or to appear before it on 28.08.2010, failing which his property shall be put to auction/sale. 4. The petitioner made detailed submissions on 25.08.2010 (Annex.4) before the Mining Engineer (Recovery), Makrana raising objections to the demand and the manner in which it was raised. The Mining Engineer thereafter issued a communication dated 18.08.2010 (Annex.5) wherein it was observed that villagers made complaint regarding illegal mining activities being undertaken by the petitioner and others and on account of illegal mining, there was absolute harm to their houses and thus the petitioner was directed to stop the same and submit his reply within fifteen days. It is alleged that the petitioner submitted his detailed reply on 25.08.2010 (Annex.6) while specifically stating that proper inspection was not conducted and the complaints etc. were made under the influence of politicians. The petitioner in the reply also stated that earlier the petitioner challenged the action/proceedings being initiated against him by the Department before the Court at Parbatsar and the court concerned vide order dated 02.05.2008 (Annex.7) restrained the Director, Mines and Geology from creating any obstruction in the mining and from declaring it a ‘Khalsa’. 5. The Mining Engineer, Makrana thereafter issued order dated 08.09.2010 (Annex.8) pointing certain deficiencies that were found by the Mines Foreman on 01.09.2010. 5. The Mining Engineer, Makrana thereafter issued order dated 08.09.2010 (Annex.8) pointing certain deficiencies that were found by the Mines Foreman on 01.09.2010. In the said order, the Mining Engineer observed that undercutting mining were being done by the petitioner towards the ‘Abadi’ of the village. Boundary Poles were there and the mining was being undertaken without adopting safety measure, which could cause injury to passers of the road. Proper fencing was not done outside the mine and mandatory plantation as required under the Rules was not done. Further, for safe mining the petitioner had failed to appoint the Manager with requisite qualification was not appointed, though vide letter dated 01.09.2010 the petitioner was restrained from doing mining until the qualified manager is appointed by the petitioner. 6. The petitioner has alleged that in compliance of the order dated 08.09.2010 the petitioner appointed manager qua QL No.215/A and presented report before the Directors of Mines Safety. The petitioner also filed detailed submission while answering the point wise reply to the order dated 08.09.2010 while stating that the deficiencies have been cured by him and the false complaints were made under the political influence. It has further averred in the writ petition that pursuant to order dated 13.05.2010, order dated 18.08.2010 came to be passed against the petitioner on the basis of complaints made by business rivalry, though there was no allegation of illegal mining against the petitioner. Being aggrieved of the orders dated 13.05.2010 the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as CWP No.1030/2011. In the aforesaid writ petition, initially an interim order was granted on 11.02.2011 and the said writ petition was thereafter allowed vide order dated 03.02.2014 (Annex.10) while setting aside the orders impugned dated 13.05.2010 and 02.12.2010. The Mining Engineer was directed to pass a speaking order afresh after considering the submissions made by the petitioner in accordance law within a period of three months. 7. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 08.09.2010 (Annex.8), preferred a revision which was registered as Revision No.168/2010, however, the revisional authority vide order dated 28.12.2012 (Annex.12) without considering the documents available on record dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. 8. Thus, the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition assailing the validity of the orders dated 08.09.2010 (Annex.8) and 28.12.2021 (Annex.11) passed by Mining Engineer, Makrana and Joint Secretary Mines, Jaipur respectively. 9. 8. Thus, the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition assailing the validity of the orders dated 08.09.2010 (Annex.8) and 28.12.2021 (Annex.11) passed by Mining Engineer, Makrana and Joint Secretary Mines, Jaipur respectively. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the orders impugned passed by the authorities below are illegal, arbitrary and have passed without considering the reply filed by the petitioner and the grounds set out in the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that while passing the order dated 08.09.2010 (Annex.8), the Mining Engineer, Makrana has failed to consider the provisions of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 in its correct perspective. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that as per the report of the Mines Foreman, Makrana, the petitioner was not remotely found in illegal mining activities. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the order dated 08.09.2010 was passed without perusing the documents and material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the report of the Senior Mines Foreman, the mine was found completely closed for 6-7 years and other persons were found involved in illegal mining activity and not the petitioner, however, the Mining Engineer has erred in issuing order dated 08.09.2010 while directing the petitioner to pay penalty amount of Rs.11,49,795/-. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the revisional authority has also not considered the documents and material placed before it and thus has erred in dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners. He further submits that the Mauka report dated 28.04.2010 prepared by the Senior Mines Foreman, Makrana has not been considered, wherein it was specifically found that no mining work on the leased area had been undertaken for last 6-7 years and also has not considered the order dated 02.05.2008 passe by Civil Court, Parbatsar. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the orders impugned passed by the authorities below are illegal, arbitrary and have passed without considering the reply filed by the petitioner and the grounds set out in the revision. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the submissions made herein above prayed that the orders impugned be quashed and set aside. 12. On the other hand, the respondents No.1 to 4 have filed reply to the writ petition while denying the averments averred. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the submissions made herein above prayed that the orders impugned be quashed and set aside. 12. On the other hand, the respondents No.1 to 4 have filed reply to the writ petition while denying the averments averred. In the reply, the respondents have stated that the petitioners were found involved in illegal mining, inasmuch as the petitioners were carrying mining operations outside the allotted quarry area and various complaints with regard to illegal mining activities were made against the petitioners. While adverting to the inspection carried out in the year 2010, it is alleged that a pit ad-measuring 15’ x 8’ x 8’ was found whereby the petitioner excavated and dispatched the mineral unauthorizedly, which in utter violation of Section 4 (1) (1A) of the MMDR At, 1957, which attracts imposition of penalty as per Section 21 of the Act of 1957. 13. Learned counsel for private respondent No.5 at the outset states that house of the respondent No.5 is situated near the mine in question and that that was employed in Education Department and during his service tenure he served at various places and never resided at Gunawati till his retirement. A reference of false complaint made by one of the petitioners, namely, Jayraj Singh was made, however, the same was found false and the proceedings were dropped. Counsel for the respondent No.5 further submits that despite passing order dated 08.09.2010 the petitioners did not stop the mining activities and continued with the same without adopting the adequate safety measures. It is thus prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent No 5 further submits that the respondent No.5 was a government employee employed in education department as is evident from the postings (Annex.-R5/1) of the respondent. He further submits that the respondent No.5 never resided at his residence at Gunawati, Makrana where the illegal mining was carried out by the petitioner and also submits that he retired from his services on 31.01.2021 and the complaint made by the petitioners against the respondent No.5 was found to be baseless and illegal and unsafe mining were being done by the petitioners for years despite orders by respondents the petitioner did not stop the illegal and the unsafe mining activities. 15. 15. The petitioners have filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents while reiterating the averments made by them in the writ petition. The respondent No.5 has also filed sur-rejoinder, alongwith photographs of the mine in question showing illegal mining undertaken as also report dated 01.08.2022 have been annexed as Annex.R/5/15 and Annex.R/5/16, which was prepared by the authorities of the Mining Department. In the said report, it has been reported that on account of illegal mining undertaken in QL No.215/A, the land sliding had taken place and debris of the land (‘Bara’) spread in the mine and got collapsed. The house of the neighbour viz. Sh. Jai Singh also cracked on account of illegal mining activities being undertaken by the petitioners. 16. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 17. This Court finds that despite repeated notices and reminders being sent to the petitioners, they proceeded with illegal mining, even to the extent that the mine itself was collapsed and the dwellings of residents of nearby persons got damaged. This Court also finds that the petitioners in one way or the other are shying away from the responsibility and liability by simply pleading that the inspection report was prepared in their absence, whereas from the perusal of the photographs and the reports annexed with the sur rejoinder filed by private respondent No.5, it is discernible that illegal mining was conducted by the petitioners, which resulted in complete collapse of the petitioners’ mine (QL No.215/A) and also caused loss to the residents of the nearby vicinity. The illegal mining was undertaken by the petitioners without adopting adequate safety measures, which they otherwise were required to adopt before conducting the mining activities and it was on account of the fault and illegal acts of the petitioners that loss/damage was caused to other residents of the locality. The averments and allegations made in the sur rejoinder by private respondent No.5 have not been specifically denied by the petitioners by way of filing any counter affidavit. This Court also observes that the authorities of the Mining Department had conducted full fledged enquiry and after conducting proper site inspection have found the petitioners guilty of committing illegal mining in the mine in question. This Court also observes that the authorities of the Mining Department had conducted full fledged enquiry and after conducting proper site inspection have found the petitioners guilty of committing illegal mining in the mine in question. The petitioners have been granted ample opportunity of being heard and to represent their case, however, they failed to establish that they were not involved in illegal mining activities or adequate safety measures were adopted by them. 18. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court the order dated 08.09.2010 (Annex.8) passed by Mining Engineer, Makrana, which has rightly been upheld by Joint Secretary, Mines, Jaipur and, therefore, the same do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The revisional authority has considered each and every grounds raised by the petitioners. 19. Accordingly in view of above discussion, the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Stay Petition and other misc. application, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.