Mere Incorporation Of Termination As Consequence In Initial Notice Not Sufficient Compliance: Rajasthan High Court Holds 30-Day Notice Mandatory Under MMC Rules
Statutory 30-day pre-termination notice is mandatory and cannot be substituted by general warnings issued at an earlier stage.
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the power to cancel a mining lease under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, must be exercised in strict adherence to procedural sequencing.
The Court clarified that the second proviso to Rule 28(2)(xvii)(a) mandates a specific 30-day notice to be issued at the juncture immediately prior to the final decision of termination. Merely mentioning termination as a potential consequence in initial show-cause notices does not satisfy this legislative requirement, as the law intends to provide the lessee with a final, concrete opportunity to rectify alleged breaches before the extreme step of cancellation is taken.
Justice Sanjeet Purohit observed, “The scheme of Rule 28, as already noticed, is not only to put the lessee on a general alert of all possible consequences, but to afford concrete and meaningful opportunity to rectify alleged breach before final decision of termination is taken. Thus, mere incorporation or recital of all possible consequences, including termination, in the initial notice cannot be construed as sufficient compliance of second proviso rather it requires that statutory notice of thirty days must be issued at the juncture immediately preceding to taking of final decision for termination of lease and not at any anterior stage…”.
Senior Advocate Vikas Balia appeared for the petitioner and Lalit Pareek, D.G.C. appeared for the Respondents.
The petitioner, Takhat Singh, was the holder of a 50-year mining lease for quartz and feldspar. In 2022, the Mining Department issued notices alleging breaches, including unauthorized mining and the absence of boundary pillars, leading to a penalty of approximately ₹1.53 crore.
Although the petitioner was actively contesting the penalty through statutory appeals and eventually deposited the revised amount under a State Amnesty Scheme, receiving a No Due Certificate, the department proceeded to cancel the lease on October 19, 2022. The department contended that the initial notices, which mentioned termination as a possible outcome, were sufficient compliance.
The petitioner initially challenged the penalty order before the First Appellate Authority and later filed a revision petition. During the pendency of these legal challenges, the lease was cancelled. The petitioner then moved the High Court via a writ petition, seeking the quashing of the termination order on the grounds that it was passed without following the mandatory 30-day notice period required under the 2017 Rules and was disproportionate given the settlement of dues.
The Court considering the mandatory nature of the second proviso to Rule 28, noted that a "general alert" in an initial notice does not equate to the "specific opportunity" contemplated by the statute.
“…The respondents were thus, under statutory obligation to issue a separate and specific notice prior to terminate the lease. Admittedly, no such notice, in compliance with the mandate of the second proviso has been issued in the present case. The requirement being mandatory in nature, its non-compliance vitiates entire action. Accordingly, on this ground alone, the impugned order dated 19.10.2022 terminating the petitioner’s mining lease cannot be allowed to be sustained”, it noted.
Furthermore, the Court found the termination order to be a "non-speaking" one that failed to address the petitioner's merits. It also noted "hostile discrimination", as the petitioner was denied lease restoration despite settling dues under an amnesty scheme, unlike other similarly situated lessees.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders dated April 18, 2022, and October 19, 2022. The Court directed the respondents to restore the petitioner’s mining lease forthwith. It further ordered that the petitioner be permitted to resume mining operations in accordance with the law, subject to compliance with all applicable conditions and the deposit of any remaining dues.
Cause Title: Takhat Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:13509)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Vikas Balia, Senior Advocate, Amit Vyas, Advocate.
Respondents: Lalit Pareek, D.G.C., and Aditya Gupta, Advocate.
Click here to read/download the Order