Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 248 (RAJ)

Daya Singh v. State of Rajasthan

1997-02-11

J.C.VERMA, M.G.MUKHERJI

body1997
Honble M.G. Mukherji, C.J.–These special appeals are directed against a judgment and order dated 26.9.1996 passed by a learned Single Judge of our Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1513/96 (Daya Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1514/96 (Kuljeet Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1515/96 (Jag Mohan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). The three writ applications pertained to applications for grant of mining lease in respect of plots no. 15, 21 and 22 in village Morwad, Tehsil and District Rajsamand. Each of the writ petitioner appellant prayed for a direction for grant of mining lease with regard to his application and impugned the order dated 14.3.1996 passed by the Mining Engineer. By a specific order in all these three matters passed on 28.5.1996 the application for grant of mining lease stood rejected. It is the case of the respondents that by virtue of the coming into operation of Clause 9 of the New Marble Policy which came into force with effect from 6th October, 1994 despite the earlier orders passed by this Court from time to time, the applications are to be deemed as pending applications and are liable to be rejected under the New Marble Policy. This submission is challenged by a appellant in each case contending inter-alia that earlier this Court directed a consideration of the application for grant of mining lease in each case where the only consideration for refusal on the part of the State Government was that the applicant in each case did not obtain a No Objection Certificate under the old Policy. (2). While the writ applications were pending hearing before the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner in each case filed an application for amendment to the pleadings so as to permit the writ petitioner to challenge the impugned decision dated 28.5.1996. It was sought to be contended by the writ petitioner in each case that bereft of the New Marble Policy, the application of each of the writ petitioner was liable to be considered in accordance with law so as to grant the mining lease since it was an old case before the coming into operation of the New Marble Policy. It was sought to be contended by the writ petitioner in each case that bereft of the New Marble Policy, the application of each of the writ petitioner was liable to be considered in accordance with law so as to grant the mining lease since it was an old case before the coming into operation of the New Marble Policy. It was specifically averred in the application for amendment that the Mining Engineer instead of complying with the orders passed by this Court earlier on 4.8.1995 rejected the application of the writ petitioner in each case with a view to make the writ application infructuous and to raise the plea with regard to alternative remedy. After service of the notice of the present writ application and after issuance of the notice for contempt against him, the Mining Engineer without showing due respect to the orders passed earlier by this Court, rejected the application for grant of mining lease by passing an order dated 28.5.1996 and there- by the respondents have tried to over-reach the process of the Court by way of not complying with the order dated 4.8.1995. The respondents had actually made an appearance before this Court on 21.5.1996 and sought time to file reply to the writ application. After obtaining time from this Court for filing reply, the Mining Engineer-I has rejected the application submitted by the writ petitioner in each case for grant of mining lease vide order dated 28.5.1996 and this was so done precisely with a view to circumvent the order passed by this Court earlier on 4.8.1995. Certain additional grounds were also sought to be urged by incorporating certain submission in the amendment application which were incorporated in additional grounds (viii), (ix), (x) and (xi). Some additional reliefs were also sought in prayers (aa). (3). What the learned Single Judge did was to reject the amendment application straightway and thereafter hold the writ application to be infructuous. We do not think that was the right approach for the case. We have gone through the amendment application in each of the three matters and we are of the considered view that the amendments were quite justified in accordance with law and did not make out any new case altogether. In that view of the matter, we think that the amendments ought to have been allowed by the learned Single Judge and we direct accordingly. (4). In that view of the matter, we think that the amendments ought to have been allowed by the learned Single Judge and we direct accordingly. (4). In our considered view we do not think that having allowed the amendments, the entire matter should be treated as infructuous. We would accordingly direct the status quo to be maintained in respect of allocation of mining lease in respect of plots no. 15, 21 and 22 and direct the learned Single Judge to hear out the writ applications afresh in accordance with law after due consideration to the amended pleadings filed by the writ petitioner in each case by giving an opportunity to the respondents to file a reply to the amended pleadings. The writ application in amended form in each case is to be filed within one week from this date and the reply be filed by the respondents within two weeks thereafter. The learned Single Judge shall dispose of the writ applications within six weeks from the date of the communication of this order. (5). We understand that in respect of plot no. 15 one Prathiv Raj Meena filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1684/96 where, by a judgment and order dated 10.9.1996, the learned Single Judge of our Court directed the State-respondent not to allot the mining area in respect of plot no. 15 to anyone else pending the disposal of the application of the said Prathvi Raj Meena. (6). The said Prathvi Raj Meena has filed an application in Special Appeal No. 556/96 to get himself impleaded as a party respondent or atleast to intervene in view of the order as passed by the learned Single Judge dated 10.9.1996. We allow his intervention in the said special appeal and we think it would be just and proper that the said Prathvi Raj Meena should be added as a party respondent in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1513/96 filed by Daya Singh in view of the subsequent events. (7). The judgment of the learned Single Judge stands set aside in each of the three cases. We would direct the learned Single Judge to hear out the writ applications afresh in accordance with law and dispose of the same within six weeks from the date of the communication of this order. We direct the Registry to put up this matter before the appropriate Bench taking misc. We would direct the learned Single Judge to hear out the writ applications afresh in accordance with law and dispose of the same within six weeks from the date of the communication of this order. We direct the Registry to put up this matter before the appropriate Bench taking misc. writ applications so that the matter can be taken up for final disposal within a period of six weeks from the date of the communication of this order. (8). All these special appeals stand allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.