Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used to Revisit Technical Findings in Illegal Mining Dispute, the order of the revisional authority sustained.
Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has refused to interfere with the illegal mining recovery proceedings against a mining leaseholder, upholding the revisional authority’s decision and declining to restore the cancelled mining lease.
Justice Anand Sharma while dismissing the petition held that the petitioner had failed to establish any jurisdictional error, perversity or violation of natural justice.
The Court observed that writ jurisdiction is not meant to serve as a third level of factual review. Once the competent revisional authority has examined the appellate order and given reasons for its decision, the Court will not re-examine the entire evidence merely to decide which authority took the better factual view.
The dispute arose when the inspection on the mining lease was conducted and the mining authorities alleged illegal excavation and transportation of limestone through the petitioner’s lease area and raised the deman of approx. ₹9.92-Crore.
The petitioner challenged the demand, disputing the inspection, demarcation and the alleged connection with illegal mining on upon that the appellate authority had initially set aside the demand after finding deficiencies in the inspection and demarcation process.
However, the revisional authority later reversed that decision and restored the demand.
The petitioner subsequently went to the High Court challenging the order of revisional authority.
Upon which the Court observed that the writ court could not reappreciate such material as an appellate court unless the revisional decision was shown to be wholly unsupported or manifestly perverse.
The Court also clarified that a revisional authority is not barred from taking suo motu action merely because the issue was brought to its notice by a departmental officer. What matters is whether the authority independently exercised the power given to it under the law.
In the factual matrix, the Court found no lack of jurisdiction in the revisional authority simply because of the manner in which the proceedings were initiated.
The Court also noted that despite repeated notices, the petitioner failed to clear the demand, leading to cancellation of the mining lease in December. It held that the required statutory procedure for cancellation had been followed.
The Court upon overall consideration finds no error of jurisdiction on the part of revisional authority, dismissed the writ petition and upheld the revisional order and denied to act as third tier for adjudication when not required.