Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 458 (RAJ)

Devendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-02-11

PRAKASH TATIA

body2005
Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for petitioner. 2. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner applied for the grant of quarry licence for quarry No. 2073 on 212.1980. The petitioners application was rejected vide order dated 21.09.1981 on the ground that road is passing through quarry No. 2073. 3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the quarry licence for the same mine was granted to respondent No. 3 on her application dated 23.1985 by order dated 6.1985. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner the said licence was granted without issuing any notification. The said quarry licence was transferred to respondent No. 4 on 15.1997. The petitioner preferred revision petition in the year, 2000 on the ground that the licence for the quarry was refused to the petitioner on the ground that road is passing through the quarry, therefore, quarry licence could also not have been granted to respondent No. 3 on 6.1985. It is also submitted that the transfer of the quarry licence in favour of the respondent No. 4 is also illegal. Apart from that, law is equally applicable to all persons and once it was held that the land is not fit for allotment then the same should not have been allotted to respondent No. 3 either. 4. The revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed by the Deputy Secretary, Mines by order dated 20.10.2003. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred the instant writ petition challenging the order of the Deputy Secretary dated 20.10.2003. 5. The facts mentioned above sufficiently indicate that the petitioner did not choose to challenge the quarry licence issued to respondent No. 3 for almost 15 years and when the said licence was transferred in favour of respondent No. 4 in the year, 1997 he preferred revision petition in the year, 2000. Therefore, on the face of these facts itself , it is clear that the petitioner was not entitled to even challenge the quarry licence which was issued to respondent No. 3 on 6.1985 by filing revision petition in the year, 2000. Even if the petitioners application for grant of mining lease was rejected by order dated 29.1981 on the ground that road is passing through the quarry, then too, that finding was not binding upon respondent No. 3. The petitioner could have challenged the rejection order by saying that road is not passing through the quarry. Even if the petitioners application for grant of mining lease was rejected by order dated 29.1981 on the ground that road is passing through the quarry, then too, that finding was not binding upon respondent No. 3. The petitioner could have challenged the rejection order by saying that road is not passing through the quarry. Even if any road was passing through the said quarry in the year, 1985, after grant of the quarry licence to respondent No. 3 there was no objection of anybody as none else challenged the action of the respondent for closing the road. Therefore, the observation that there is no road at present clearly reveals that the authorities considered the case and thereafter, passed the order for which the petitioner had no grievance for years together. In these facts and circumstances there is no merit in the writ petition. 6. The writ petition is hereby dismissed.