Mandatory thirty-day notice must precede mining lease termination to satisfy statutory safeguards and natural justice.

The Petitioner was granted a 50-year mining lease for quartz and feldspar on 07.02.2020

On 12.01.2022, Respondent No. 3 issued a notice alleging non-installation of boundary pillars and unauthorized mining.

Despite the Petitioner’s reply, a demand/order was issued on 18.04.2022 imposing a penalty of ₹1,53,11,900/-

While the Petitioner pursued statutory remedies against this demand, Respondent No. 2 terminated the mining lease on 19.10.2022 under Rule 28(2)(xvii)(a) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules (MMCR), 2017

Subsequently, the Petitioner deposited the entire revised penalty under a State Amnesty Scheme and received a “No Due Certificate” on 29.11.2024, yet the lease remained unrestored

1. Whether the termination order is void for non-compliance with the mandatory 30-day notice period required under the second proviso to Rule 28(2)(xvii)(a) of the MMCR, 2017?

2. Whether the termination of the lease is violative of the doctrine of proportionality given the availability of alternative penalties?

3. Whether the foundational demand order dated 18.04.2022 is legally sustainable despite being unreasoned and non-speaking?

4. Whether the refusal to restore the lease after settlement under the Amnesty Scheme amounts to hostile discrimination under Article 14?

Rule 28(2)(xvii)(a) and Schedule IV of the MMCR, 2017, which mandates that a decision to terminate a lease shall only be taken if the lessee fails to remedy a breach after a specific 30-day notice

the doctrine of proportionality as established in M/s Sojat Lime Company v. State of Rajasthan, holding that authorities must consider lesser penalties before the "extreme step" of termination

the principles of natural justice regarding reasoned orders from M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan

the principle of equality under Article 14 regarding the restoration of leases post-Amnesty Scheme settlements as seen in Om Prakash Agrawal v. State of Rajasthan

The Court observed that the second proviso to Rule 28(2)(xvii)(a) creates a graduated procedure where termination is a last resort.

It held that a specific 30-day notice must be issued at the stage when termination is proposed; a general warning in an initial notice does not suffice.

Regarding proportionality, the Court noted that the MMCR provides for alternative financial penalties; jumping straight to termination without recording why lesser penalties were insufficient is arbitrary.

The Court also found the order dated 18.04.2022 to be a "rubber-stamp" order that failed to address the Petitioner's specific defenses, thus violating natural justice.

Finally, the Court noted that the Department had restored leases for other individuals (e.g., Sanjay Agrawal) upon payment under the Amnesty Scheme; denying the Petitioner the same treatment constituted hostile discrimination.

It held that the termination was procedurally flawed for lack of mandatory notice and substantively disproportionate.

The Respondents were directed to restore the Petitioner’s mining lease forthwith and permit the resumption of mining operations subject to applicable conditions and any remaining dues.