Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
M/S Prateek Minerals vs State Of Rajasthan … on 6 March, 2025
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Bhuwan Goyal
[2025:RJ-JP:10038-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 162/2025
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2780/2025
1. M/s Prateek Minerals, 6J(A), Malviya Industrial Area, Jaipur
- 302017 Through Its Sole Proprietor Shri Prateek Agarwal
Residing At 230, Nemisagar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur-
302021 (Raj.).
2. Prateek Agarwal S/o Shri Shankar Lal Agarwal, Aged About
40 Years, Resident At 230, Nemisagar Colony, Vaishali
Nagar, Jaipur-302021 (Raj.).
----Appellants
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through Additional Chief Secretary,
Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Director, Department of Mines And Geology, Govt. of
Rajsthan, Khanij Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur
(Rajasthan).
3. The Mining Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology,
Govt. of Rajasthan, Opposite Hotel Ashoka, Road No. 2,
Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. A.K. Sharma Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Karan Tibrewal
Advocate.
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Judgment
06/03/2025
1. Heard on admission.
2. The order passed by the learned Single Judge on 21.02.2025 in
the writ petition directed against show cause notice dated
07.01.2025 is under challenge in this appeal.
3. Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of the appellants would argue that the learned Single Judge has
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:56:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10038-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-162/2025]
recorded an erroneous finding on the face of the contents of the
show cause notice that the show cause notice has not been issued
with any premeditated mind. Learned Senior Advocate, by reading
out the contents of the show cause notice dated 07.01.2025, would
submit that the detailed show cause notice records satisfaction,
conclusive in nature, with regard to irregularities having been
committed by the appellants, by relying upon the materials including
site inspection report. He would submit that the notice clearly shows
that the authority has applied its mind in great details and after
deep examination, recorded specific finding regarding irregularities
committed by the appellants. Therefore, issuance of show cause
notice and obtaining reply is empty formality. On such fact
situation, the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the cases of Siemens Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others,
(2006) 12 SCC 33 and ORYX Fisheries Private Limited Vs.
Union of India (UOI) & Others, (2010) 13 SCC 427 are
squarely applicable in the present case.
4. We have gone through the order passed by the learned Single
Judge.
5. Learned Single Judge, after going through the contents of the
show cause notice, has recorded that the show cause notice is based
on site inspection carried at the spot by the respondents. Learned
Single Judge has rejected the contention that the site inspection
could not have been carried out without notice to the concerned and
in the absence to there being any requirement of law. According to
learned Single Judge, sudden and surprise inspection could always
be carried, if warranted. However, learned Single Judge stopped
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:56:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10038-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-162/2025]
there by observing that the matter is still pending consideration
before the competent authority, therefore, the Court does not wish
to delve deep into that aspect. It also records that the appellants
have already submitted their response to the show cause notice and
the authority is yet to take a decision.
6. We have also gone through the contents of the show cause
notice. True it is that the show cause notice is quite detailed one and
also refers to site inspection report. Merely because the contents of
the show cause notice are detailed one, it could not be made a basis
to conclude that the authority has prejudged the issue. It appears
that a surprise spot inspection was carried and the report was
submitted before the authority. Based on that report, a show cause
notice has been issued to the appellants. The occasion to issue show
cause notice arose because the contents of the site inspection report
are against the appellants. The show cause notice, in terms, does
not record any finding as such that the authority has finally accepted
the site inspection report. It is only a process of application of mind
by the authority as to whether it is a case for issuance of notice to
the appellants. Tentative view taken by the authority is only to
enable the appellants to submit their objections not only to the
contents of the site inspection report but also the manner in which
the site inspection report was prepared.
7. Reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
cases of Siemens Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others
(supra) and ORYX Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India
(UOI) & Others (supra) are misplaced on facts. In the peculiar
circumstances of those cases, on facts, looking into the text and
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:56:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10038-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-162/2025]
tenor of the show cause notices therein, an opinion was formed that
the issue in that case was prejudged.
Merely because the authority has applied its mind in great
detail before issuance of show cause notice could not be made a
basis to say that the issue has been prejudged. Whatever is
contained in the show cause notice is only tentative opinion subject
to consideration of the objections/reply which the appellants may
submit to the show cause notice.
Indeed, the manner in which the authority has proceeded
shows that issuance of show cause notice is not mechanical, but
based on some prima facie material and consideration.
8. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this
appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. We must hasten to clarify by way of abundant caution that
contents of the notice are mere tentative view subject to
objections/reply which have already been filed by the appellants.
The authority would be obliged under the law to consider each and
every objection before arriving at a conclusion whether any violation
has been done by the appellants. The objections to site inspection
report are also required to be examined on its own merits and the
site inspection report cannot be accepted without consideration of
the objections/reply of the appellants.
Furthermore, any observations made by learned Single Judge
with regard to merits of the case shall not have any effect.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ
MANOJ NARWANI
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:56:15 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)