Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mohd. Sabeer Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:10224) on 25 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:10224] (1 of 9) [CW-3778/2026]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3778/2026
Mohd. Sabeer Khan S/o Gulbaj Khan Pathan, Aged About 62
Years, Resident Of Saawa, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Mines And
Geology Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Mines And Geology Department, Udaipur.
3. Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Pratapgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Vyas.
Mr. Amit Vyas.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG.
Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
Reportable
25/02/2026
1. The present petition is filed challenging notice dated
04.12.2025, whereby petitioner has been called upon to submit
explanation regarding demand of penalty amount to the tune of
Rs.68,32,89,120/-, proposed to be imposed upon the petitioner
regarding alleged illegal mining based on drone survey report.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that mining lease
No.3A/2006 was granted in favour of the petitioner regarding
mineral Red Ochre, Laterite, Bauxite and China Clay, in the year
1986 which is extended up to 2037. It is contended that petitioner
is having all the required permissions / clearance / consents and
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 06:05:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:37:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10224] (2 of 9) [CW-3778/2026]
has undertaken the mining activity strictly in accordance with
terms and conditions of the lease agreement.
2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that respondent
authorities have intimated the petitioner and got conducted a
drone survey on 04.10.2025, through private agency. It is further
contended that without verifying the veracity of said drone survey,
impugned show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging
illegal mining by the petitioner and a huge demand of
Rs.68,32,89,120/- was raised against the petitioner.
2.2 Counsel for the petitioner stated that in spite of availability of
better, well established and more precise techniques, the
inspection has been conducted through drone survey by a private
agency. It is stated that even the copy of drone survey report has
not been supplied to the petitioner, which is the sole basis of the
notice of recovery issued to the petitioner.
3. Per contra, representing respondent Department, AAG Mr.
Mahaveer Bishnoi stated that drone survey constitutes the most
scientific and reliable methodology for conducting the survey. It is
further contended that the relevant details / particulars of the
survey report have already been duly mentioned in the notice
impugned. Hence, furnishing the complete drone survey report is
not necessary.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the
drone survey report constitutes the sole incriminating material
relied upon against the petitioner and non-supply thereof amounts
to a clear denial of a fair opportunity to submit his defence and
effectively rebut the said report. It is further mere selective
reproduction of some details of the said so called drone survey
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 06:05:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:37:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10224] (3 of 9) [CW-3778/2026]
report is not sufficient as various substantial and essential
particulars, including the precise longitude and latitude
coordinates of the entire area in question, have not been disclosed
in the impugned notice and such details can be ascertained only
from the drone survey report itself. It is stated that since the show
cause notice in itself is incomplete and laconic, the same being
violative of principles of natural justice, is not sustainable in the
eye of law.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. In considered view of this Court, non-disclosure of adverse
material to the petitioner, fundamentally denies an effective
hearing, as enshrined in the audi alteram partem principle of
natural justice. Without access to the precise data as mentioned in
the said drone survey report underpinning the allegations, the
petitioner remains bereft of any meaningful opportunity to contest
veracity of the countervailing evidence. The same strikes at the
root of procedural fairness and therefore, renders the resultant
notice arbitrary.
7. This Hon’ble High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
9670/2024; Meghraj Singh Shekhawat v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors., has held that in consonance with the
principles of natural justice, it is incumbent upon the State
authorities to furnish a copy of the material sought to be relied
upon against a person, so as to enable him to effectively defend
himself. The same was relied upon in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 12398/2024; Abhimanyu Choudhary v. State Of
Rajasthan And Ors and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 06:05:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:37:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10224] (4 of 9) [CW-3778/2026]
12110/2024; Paras Devi v. State of Rajasthan. The relevant
paragraphs of Meghraj Singh Shekhawat (supra) are
reproduced herein below:
“7. The facts of the case do not require much attention of
the Court, particularly when the factum of notice being
issued on the basis of drone survey report dated 14.06.2023
not in dispute so also the fact that copy of the said report
was not provided to the petitioner.
8. In the opinion of this Court, the order dated 13.05.2024
is in teeth of principles of natural justice, which enjoins
upon State authorities to provide copy of the material
being used against the citizens.
9. Since, the order impugned is against the basic tenets of
law and facets of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, this
Court is not much convinced by the preliminary objection
raised by Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, learned AAG that a remedy
of appeal/revision is available to the petitioner.
10. Exercise of writ jurisdiction is a matter of discretion.
When the facts are admitted and the violation of principles
of natural justice is writ large, this Court would be loath in
asking the petitioner to go to appellate authority. That
apart, the observation made by this Court about
requirement of providing copy of drone report or survey
report would requires the authorities to follow the principles
of natural justice.
11. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the order
impugned dated 13.05.2024 is hereby quashed and set
aside.”
8. This Hon’ble High Court in Babu Bhai Patel v State of
Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18885/2024
quashed a demand notice on the ground that no notice was given
before undertaking drone survey. The relevant paragraphs are
reproduced herein below:
“6. Since no notice was given to the petitioner before
undertaking the survey through drone and the order of
recovery has been passed by the respondents, as such, the
action of the respondents is in violation of the law laid down
by the Division Bench of this Court. In the case of Mewar
Marbles (supra).
7. In view of the discussion made above, the present writ
petition is allowed and the demand notice dated
21.10.2024 (Annex.1) is quashed and set aside. The State
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 06:05:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:37:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10224] (5 of 9) [CW-3778/2026]Government is given liberty to undertake fresh survey
through physical mode/drone after giving notice to the
petitioner and thereafter if any recovery is due to the
petitioner, the same be made in accordance with law.”
9. Therefore, the non-supply of the drone survey report to the
petitioner is contrary to the principles of natural justice, and on
this ground alone, the notice dated 04.12.2025 deserves to be
quashed. This obligation becomes even more stringent in view of
the circular dated 06.03.2025 issued by the Department of Mines
and Geology, Government of Rajasthan, whereby the authorities
have been mandated to issue a notice prior to inspection of mines
and, as far as possible, to conduct such inspection in the presence
of the mining lessee or his representative. The circular further
provides that after the inspection, a copy of the inspection report
should be made available to the lessee while issuing any legal
notice. The relevant part of the said circular is reproduced herein
below:
^^[kuu iV~Vk/kkjh ds [kku fujh{k.k djus ls iwoZ fujh{k.k dk uksfVl
rkehy djk;k tkuk lqfuf”pr djsa rFkk [kuu iV~Vs dk ;Fkk laHko [kuu
iV~Vk/kkjh@izfrfuf/k dh mifLFkfr esa gh [kkuksa dk fujh{k.k fd;k tk,a
rFkk fujh{k.k mijkUr iV~Vk/kkjh dks fof/kd uksfVl tkjh djrs le;
fujh{k.k fjiksVZ dh izfr miyC/k djkosaA^^
10. Moreover, the mere inclusion of selective particulars from the
drone survey report, as per subjective satisfaction regarding
adequacy of details / particulars by respondents, cannot be
regarded as sufficient compliance with the requirement of
affording a meaningful and effective opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. Consequently, violation of the principles of natural
justice is manifest and apparent on the face of the record in the
present case. In this view of matter, the notice impugned cannot
be allowed to be sustained.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 06:05:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:37:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10224] (6 of 9) [CW-3778/2026]
11. With regard to the objection of the respondents regarding
maintainability of the present writ petition against show cause
notice, this Court finds that law with regard to writ petitions
against show cause notice is well settled as the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the land mark judgment passed in case of Siemens Ltd.
v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 12 SCC 33 held that writ
petition against a show cause notice is maintainable where the
notice itself is without jurisdiction or in denial of principles of
natural justice or where it appears that said notice has been
issued with pre-meditation. The relevant paragraph is reproduced
herein below:
“9. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition
questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter
alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been
held by this Court in some decisions including State of
U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3
ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943] , Special Director v. Mohd.
Ghulam Ghouse [(2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826]
and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12
SCC 28 : (2006) 12 Scale 262] , but the question herein
has to be considered from a different angle viz. when a
notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition would
be maintainable. In such an event, even if the court directs
the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh,
ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful
purpose. (See K.I. Shephard v. Union of India [(1987) 4
SCC 431 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 438 : AIR 1988 SC 686] .) It is
evident in the instant case that the respondent has clearly
made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the counter-
affidavit as also in its purported show-cause notice.”
12. In view of the aforesaid reasons and judicial
pronouncements, the present writ petition stands allowed. The
impugned show cause notice dated 04.12.2025 is hereby quashed
and set aside. However, liberty is given to respondent authorities
to issue fresh notice to the petitioner by supplying complete copy
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 06:05:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:37:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10224] (7 of 9) [CW-3778/2026]
of the drone survey report to the petitioner and consequential
proceedings, if any, shall be carried out strictly in accordance with
law, while complying provisions of MMCR – 2027, after adhering to
the principles of natural justice and guidelines contained in circular
dated 06.03.2025.
13. Before parting, in light of observations made in present case
so also in various judgments passed in similar circumstance cases,
this Court deems it necessary to record its serious concern
regarding a recurring practice adopted by the respondents
authorities to conduct surveys without issuing prior notice to the
concerned mining lessees or to initiate proceedings without
furnishing a copy of the survey report to the affected parties. Such
a course of action is not an isolated aberration but reflects a
continuing disregard for the basic safeguards of fair procedure, on
the part of respondent authorities.
14. This Court has repeatedly encountered similar instances in a
series of cases, including Babu Bhai Patel (supra), Ashu Singh
Bhati v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 2938,
Paras Devi, Sanjay Kumar Garg v. State of Rajasthan, 2024
SCC OnLine Raj 2940, Abhimanyu Choudhary (supra),
Shekhawat Associates v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC
OnLine Raj 2939, and Bharat Singh Shekhawat v. State of
Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 2933, wherein this Court has
consistently deprecated such conduct. Despite repeated judicial
pronouncements, similar irregularities have been committed by
the authorities of respondent – Mining Department, which reflects
indifference towards binding precedents and settled legal
principles.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 06:05:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:37:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10224] (8 of 9) [CW-3778/2026]
15. This Court expresses its displeasure regarding such arbitrary,
high-handed, and recalcitrant actions on the part of the
respondents. The failure to supply the survey report, despite
placing reliance thereon, strikes at the very root of the principles
of natural justice, rendering the entire proceedings vitiated. It
effectively deprives the affected party of any meaningful
opportunity to respond, thereby reducing the proceedings to a
mere formality. The same not only results in unwarranted
harassment of mining lease holders but also compels them to
approach this Court, thereby unnecessarily burdening the judicial
system with avoidable litigation.
16. What is even more appalling is that such conduct is in the
teeth of the respondents’ own circular dated 06.03.2025, which
explicitly mandates prior notice before inspection and requires
that a copy of the inspection/survey report be furnished to the
lessee. The continued and deliberate non-compliance of the said
circular demonstrates a casual and negligent approach on the part
of the authorities.
17. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court considers it both
necessary and appropriate to direct the Principal Secretary, Mines
and Geology Department, to take due cognizance of the
observations recorded in the present matter. The Principal
Secretary shall, accordingly, issue comprehensive and clear
instructions / guidelines to all subordinate authorities delineating
the procedure, manner, and methodology to be followed while
conducting inspections or surveys. Such instructions shall also
expressly incorporate mandatory requirements of law, including
adherence to principles of natural justice, transparency, and
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 06:05:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:37:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10224] (9 of 9) [CW-3778/2026]
fairness, to be observed not only during the course of inspections
but also in any consequential proceedings initiated on the basis
thereof.
18. The Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department is
further expected to ensure strict and uniform compliance of these
directions across all levels of the Department. To this end,
appropriate mechanisms shall be put in place to monitor
adherence, and suitable provisions shall be made for fixing
accountability in cases of deviation or non-compliance. The
instructions / guidelines shall also provide that any lapse on the
part of the concerned officials would invite proportionate
administrative action so as to deter recurrence of such practices.
19. A copy of this order be sent to Principal Secretary, Mines and
Geology Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur for necessary compliance.
20. Stay application and all other pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
69-sumer/-
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 06:05:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 08:37:12 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)