Order : (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.) 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner with the following prayer: “(i) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure-26) as well as other incidental proceeding arising out of the same (if any); (ii) To quash and set aside the order dated 20.08.2024 (Annexure-22) and the demand order dated 22.03.2024 (Annexure-19) so passed by the respondents; (iii) To quash and set aside the show cause notice dated 18.01.2024 (Annexure-14) and 27.01.2024 (Annexure-17) along with all the subsequent proceedings arising out in pursuance of the aforesaid notices; (iv) To direct the respondents to restore the mining lease bearing ML No. 14/2003 situated Near Village Chhapra, Tehsil-Pahadi, Distt.-Deeg in favor of the petitioner. (v) To direct the respondents to not to initiate any coercive action against the petitioner, and; (vi) Cost of the writ petition may also kindly be awarded in favor of the petitioner. (vii) Any other writ, order or direction which may be considered just and fair in facts and circumstances of the instant case may kindly also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned orders dated 26.03.2025 and 20.08.2024; demand order dated 22.03.2024; and show cause notices dated 18.01.2024 & 27.01.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a mining lease for the mineral Silica Sand admeasuring 05 hectare area situated near village Chhapra, Tehsil Pahari, District Bharatpur was sanction in favour of the petitioner on 30.12.2005 and a subsequent mining lease was executed on 03.02.2006 for a period of 20 years. Counsel submits that the mining activities/operations were closed in the year 2016 on account of non-receipt of Environment Clearance and thereafter, some inspection was done by the Mining Department in the year 2018, where certain old pits were found and no mining operations were found to be carrying on. Counsel submits that thereafter, again an inspection was done in the year 2022, where no mining activities or pits were found. Counsel submits that all of a sudden in absence of the petitioner, inspection was done and an ex-parte report was prepared on 16.01.2024, wherein, it was alleged that illegal mining activities were conducted by the petitioner in her own mining area as well as on the two nearby situated sites. Counsel submits that all of a sudden in absence of the petitioner, inspection was done and an ex-parte report was prepared on 16.01.2024, wherein, it was alleged that illegal mining activities were conducted by the petitioner in her own mining area as well as on the two nearby situated sites. Counsel submits that on the basis of the ex-parte inspection report, a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner on 18.01.2024, against which she submitted a detailed reply. Counsel submits that considering the averments made in the reply, the impugned demand order dated 22.03.2024 has been passed by the respondents, wherein the reply/objections submitted by the petitioner were not at all considered and the same were rejected in one single line that the petitioner has failed to prove any evidence that he has not conducted any illegal mining. Counsel submits that without supplying the inspection report, the above proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner, which has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel submits that by passing the order impugned, a penalty for conversion factor has also been imposed, which could not have been imposed in the light of the circular/order dated 15.11.2017 issued by the Department of Mining, which clearly specifies that after enactment of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules , 2017 (for short ‘the Rules of 2017’), notified on 01.03.2017, the provision for conversion factor in royalty Schedule has been removed. Counsel submits that the provision for conversion factor was applicable prior to enactment of the Rules of 2017, hence, under these circumstances, there is total non-application of mind on the part of the respondents in passing the order impugned. Counsel submits that all these facts were brought into notice of the Appellate Authority by the petitioner by way of filing a revision petition, but the same were not considered and the revision petition was rejected and subsequent impugned orders have been passed illegally. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Counsel submits that in view of the submission made herein above, the orders impugned passed by the respondents are liable to be quashed and set-aside and the matter is required to be remitted to the authorities for fresh consideration and adjudication after taking into count the defence/objections taken by the petitioner before the authorities and before this Court. 5. 4. Counsel submits that in view of the submission made herein above, the orders impugned passed by the respondents are liable to be quashed and set-aside and the matter is required to be remitted to the authorities for fresh consideration and adjudication after taking into count the defence/objections taken by the petitioner before the authorities and before this Court. 5. Counsel further submits that though initially the mining lease was granted to the petitioner for mineral Silica Sand only, but subsequently masonry stone was also included in the approved mining plan. Counsel submits that the respondents cannot charge 100% penalty for 20% Silica Sand. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 6. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the following judgments passed in the case of: i. M/s Haryana Mining Company vs. State of Haryana & Ors. ( Civil Appeal No.3795/2022 ) passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. ii. Meghraj Singh Shekhwat vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. ( S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9670/2024 ) on 12.07.2024, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. iii. G. Vardhman Jain vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. ( S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.315/2025 ) on 04.02.2025, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-State opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that when the inspection was carried out on the site, illegal mining activities were found, not only within the leased mining area/site of the petitioner, but also at two different places adjacent to the mining site of the petitioner. Counsel submits that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and response of the petitioner was called upon and after considering the material available on the record, the Mining Engineer has passed a just and cogent order, which requires no interference of this Court. He further submits that no mining lease was ever executed in favour of the petitioner for masonry stone and even then, the petitioner was doing illegal mining of the said stone too, that is why, recovery/demand orders and penalty orders have been passed against the petitioner. He further submits that no mining lease was ever executed in favour of the petitioner for masonry stone and even then, the petitioner was doing illegal mining of the said stone too, that is why, recovery/demand orders and penalty orders have been passed against the petitioner. Counsel submits that the circular relied upon by the petitioner dated 15.11.2017 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner, looking to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and these facts have been appreciated not only by the Mining Engineer, but also by the Revisional Authority by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 8. Heard and consider the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 9. The case of the petitioner is that the mining activity of the petitioner was closed since 2016 due to which no mining activity was done by her on the mining site as well as on the adjacent sides. It is the case of the respondents that when the site was inspected on 16.01.2024, fresh illegal mining activities were found to be conducted and on the spot a site- inspection report was prepared and show cause notice of recovery was given to the petitioner on 18.01.2024. 10. The case of the petitioner is that the copy of the site- inspection report dated 16.01.2024 was not supplied to her along with the show cause notice dated 18.01.2024, hence, she could not submit a proper reply to the notice. 11. Furthermore, it is contended by the petitioner that the site-inspection report dated 16.01.2024 has been placed for the first time by the respondents before this Court along with reply in the record and since the petitioner was not having better particulars of the material against the respondents, therefore, one more opportunity be granted to the petitioner to file fresh reply in the light of the inspection report. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of G. Vardhman Jain (supra) , wherein the following observation/order was passed in para 3 to 7, which reads as under: “3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while issuing the show-cause notice (Annex.1) to the petitioner, the respondents did not annex the copy of the site inspection report. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while issuing the show-cause notice (Annex.1) to the petitioner, the respondents did not annex the copy of the site inspection report. He submits that since the inspection report was not annexed along with the show-cause notice, the petitioner could not file an effective reply to defend his case and in the absence of the effective reply of the petitioner, the order dated 15.10.2024 has been passed by the respondents imposing a huge penalty upon the petitioner. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents very fairly submits that the copy of the inspection report was not annexed with the show-cause notice. However, he prays that the respondents may be given liberty to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a stipulated period of time. 5. In view of the submission made before this Court, it has come on record that the show-cause notice dated 24.08.2024 was not accompanied by the site inspection report, which is the basis for imposing the penalty in the present case. Hence, the order dated 15.10.2024 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is, therefore, quashed. 6. It is further ordered that the respondents will be at liberty to pass a fresh order within a period of four weeks from today, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. Needless to say that the petitioner will be free to file a fresh reply to the notice, if he so desires. At this stage, learned cousnel for the petitioner submits that now the petitioner has received the copy of the site inspection report under the RTI. Since the petitioner has already received the site inspection report under the RTI, therefore, the Department may not serve a fresh copy of the site inspection report to the petitioner. The petitioner shall furnish the reply within a period of two weeks from today.” 12. It has also been argued that 100% penalty of Silica Sand cannot be imposed when the mining lease was divided into two parts i.e., 20% for Silica Sand and 80% for Masonry Stone and that too with conversion factor which would not apply in the instant matter in the light of circular dated 15.11.2017. It has also been argued that 100% penalty of Silica Sand cannot be imposed when the mining lease was divided into two parts i.e., 20% for Silica Sand and 80% for Masonry Stone and that too with conversion factor which would not apply in the instant matter in the light of circular dated 15.11.2017. His whole & sole prayer is for remitting the matter to the respondents for deciding the representation/reply of the petitioner afresh. 13. Though, all the submissions have been opposed by counsel for the respondents but he could not controvert the same. No documentary evidence has been placed on record that site-inspection report was supplied to the petitioner with the show cause notice. The impugned order dated 20.08.2024 and the revisional order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Additional Director as well as Revisional Authority respectively do not reveal the fact as to why the site-inspection report was not supplied to the petitioner and how the conversion factor was applicable in the case of the petitioner and both the impugned orders are silent in this regard. 14. It is in this background, the matter is required to be decided by the respondents afresh. The petitioner is granted liberty to file fresh representation in the light of the site- inspection report dated 16.01.2024 and the circular dated 15.11.2017 before the respondents within a period of 15 days from today. 15. The respondents are directed to pass a fresh order within a period of four weeks thereafter, while affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 16. With the above observations and directions, the instant writ petition as well as the stay application and all applications pending (if any) stand disposed of. 17. For a period of six weeks, it is directed that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner. 18. Before parting with the order, it is made clear that this Court has not issued any direction/order to the respondents to decide the reply/representation of the petitioner in a particular way and the same would be decided by them strictly in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order.