Raj HC quashes cancellation of quarry licence for non-service of mandatory 30-day notice under 2017 Rules

Jaipur/Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that cancellation of a quarry licence under Rule 28(3)(x) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 can be effected only after valid service of a mandatory thirty days’ notice to remedy the breach, and that such service must strictly comply with Rule 86 of the Rules of 2017. The Court further held that presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 arises only when the notice is properly addressed and sent by registered post to the complete address recorded in the licence.

Justice Sanjeet Purohit recorded that Rule 28(3)(x) expressly provides that cancellation of licence can be ordered only if the licensee fails to remedy the breach after serving of a thirty days’ notice. The Court also examined Rule 86, which mandates that every notice must be given in writing in person or by registered post at the address recorded in the licence or such other address as intimated in writing.

The writ petition was filed by Smt. Bhanwari Devi challenging the order dated 16.08.2018 passed by the Assistant Mining Engineer, Balesar cancelling Quarry Licence No. 321, Village Somanada, Tehsil Balesar, and the appellate order dated 11.12.2019 passed by the Additional Director, Environment & Health, Mines & Geology Department, Udaipur dismissing her appeal.

The petitioner contended that the cancellation order was passed without serving the mandatory thirty days’ notice and that the notice dated 06.05.2014 had been sent to an incomplete address. It was further contended that the appellate authority dismissed the appeal by a non-speaking order without considering the grounds raised.

The respondents submitted that notice had been sent by registered post and had not been received back, and therefore service was presumed. It was also contended that breach of licence conditions was established and that counsel for the petitioner before the appellate authority had stated that dues would be paid if the licence was restored.

The Court, after examining the record, noted that the address recorded in the quarry licence was “Smt. Bhawari Devi, Sanjay Colony, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur,” whereas the notice dated 06.05.2014 had been issued to “Bhawari Devi, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur.” The Court further recorded that the notice had been returned by the Postal Department with the endorsement “address is incomplete,” yet no fresh notice was sent to the complete address.

Referring to Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 read with Section 119 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the Court held that the presumption of service arises only when the notice is properly addressed, pre-paid and posted by registered post. Reliance was placed on Kailash Chand v. Hemlata, 1997 SCC OnLine Raj 587, wherein it was held that presumption of service cannot arise if the correct address is not written on the envelope.

The Court held that mere dispatch of a notice by registered post, without ensuring that it is sent to the proper address as recorded in the quarry licence, cannot be construed as valid service. It was conclusively found that the mandatory requirement of serving thirty days’ notice before cancellation had not been complied with.

The Court also examined the appellate order dated 11.12.2019 and recorded that the appeal had been rejected in a single paragraph without adverting to the specific grounds raised by the petitioner. The Court held that the appellate order was cryptic and non-speaking and reflected non-application of mind.

In this regard, reliance was placed on Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, wherein the Supreme Court held that quasi-judicial authorities must record reasons in support of their conclusions and that reasons are an indispensable component of fair decision-making.

The Court further referred to its earlier decision in M/s Sojat Lime Company v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14717/2017), affirmed by the Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal Appl. Writ No. 200/2019, wherein it was stressed that opportunity must be granted before cancellation of a mining lease.

In view of the findings that the mandatory thirty days’ notice had not been validly served and that the appellate order was unreasoned, the writ petition was allowed. The impugned orders dated 16.08.2018 and 11.12.2019 were quashed and set aside. The Mining Department was directed to restore Quarry Licence No. 321 forthwith and permit the petitioner to operate the quarry in accordance with law.

However, the Court clarified that it would be open to the Department to initiate fresh proceedings, if so advised, strictly in accordance with law after issuance and proper service of show-cause notice and after affording opportunity of hearing.

Case Title
Smt. Bhanwari Devi vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case Number
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12367/2020

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur

Bench
Justice Sanjeet Purohit

Date of Order
04/02/2026

Advocates
For the petitioner: Mr. Amit Vyas
For the respondents: Mr. Mrigraj Singh Rathore, Mr. Lalit Pareek

Judgments Relied Upon

Kailash Chand v. Hemlata, 1997 SCC OnLine Raj 587
Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496
M/s Sojat Lime Company v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14717/2017
State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. M/s Sojat Lime Company, D.B. Special Appeal Appl. Writ No. 200/2019