RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

                      Mohan

                      Vs.

                      State of Rajasthan

                      Civil Writ Petn. No. 6780 of 1992
                            (Sunil Kumar Garg, J.)

                      10.07.2002

                      ORDER

Sunil Kumar Garg, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by
the petitioner against the respondents on 16-12- 1992 with a prayer that by an
appropriate writ, order or direction, the show cause notice dated 21-7-1992 (Annexure
3) issued by the Regional Forest Officer, Gadi (Partapur) be quashed.

2. It arises in the following circumstances:

i) That the petitioner applied for quarry license in the year 1981 and the same
was granted to him on 4-1-1982 and right from that date, every year this quarry
license was renewed according to the provisions contained in Rule 26 of the
Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. A copy of the license is
Annexure 1.
ii) That the petitioner applied for renewal of license on 23-12-1991 for 1-1-
1992 to 31-12-1992 and the same was granted to the petitioner and he was
directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 275/- for the same which was deposited by
him on 23-12-1991.
(iii) The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner received a show
cause notice dated 21-7-1992 (Annexure 3) issued by Regional Forest Officer,
Gadi (respondent No. 3) whereby the petitioner was directed to submit the
mining patta, the map of the area along with demarcation line and he was
further directed to close the operation of removing the limestone from the
Pahari. It was further mentioned in the show cause notice dated 21-7-1992
       (Annexure 3) that during survey, it was found that this area comes within the
       area of forest.
       (iv) It is further submitted that the show cause notice dated 21-7- 1992
       (Annexure 3) was issued by the respondent No. 3 under the powers conferred
       by Section 72(b) of the Forest Act, 1953 and according to the petitioner, he has
       apprehension that because of the intervention of the Forest Department, Mines
       Department might not renew his lease and hence this writ petition with the
       prayer just stated above.

3. Reply to the writ petition was also filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 17-12-
1993.

4. It may further be stated here that on stay application, an interim stay was granted in
favor of the petitioner vide order dated 18-12-1992 and the same was confirmed vide
order dated 8-9-1995. Thus the stay order is in force.

5. In this writ petition, the only prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner
is that before taking any action in pursuance of show cause notice dated 21-7-1992
(Annexure 3), the petitioner should be heard.

6. In my opinion, this prayer appears to be just and reasonable one and therefore, it
should be accepted and for which the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has
also no objection. For the reasons mentioned above the present writ petition is
disposed of in the manner that the petitioner would file reply to the impugned show
cause notice dated 21-7-1992 (Annexure 3) passed by respondent No. 3 (Regional
Forest Officer, Gadi) within one month from today and after that, within two months
from submission of reply by the petitioner, the Regional Forest Officer, Gadi
(respondent No. 3) shall pass appropriate order on show cause notice dated 21-7-1992
(Annexure 3) in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
The stay order dated 18-12-1992 granted by this Court which was confirmed vide
order dated 8-9-1995 shall remain in force only for three months from today.
Order accordingly.