Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 522 (RAJ)

Sara Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2005-02-16

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-The instant petition was preferred by Shri Rana Ram who died on 210.1995. The present petitioners being legal heirs of Shri Rana Ram were ordered to be substituted as petitioners on 2.1996. A challenge is given by the petitioners to the order dated 22.1991 passed by Mining Engineer, Jodhpur rejecting the application preferred by Late Shri Rana Ram for allotment of mining lease pertaining to mineral granite near village Phoolan, Tehsil Siwana, District Barmer. 2. By the order impugned Mining Engineer, Jodhpur rejected the application submitted on the count that Late Shri Rana Ram was already having two mining leases in his favour and no application for third mining lease could be entertained. 3. The contention of the petitioners is that under Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 a person is entitled for three mining lease throughout the state for different minerals. The petitioners though having two mining leases but none of those leases pertain to mineral granite. The petitioners have also averred in the petition that their application was rejected on basis of a wrong note made by a clerk of the respondent department namely Shri Ghanshyam Sharma. It is also stated that the note was intentionally made by aforesaid Shri Ghanshyam Sharma with view to give favour to respondent No. 4 Smt. Shanti Devi who happens to be mother of Shri Ghanshyam Sharma. It is further stated that after rejecting application preferred by the petitioner on basis of note made by Shri Ghanshyam a mining lease was allotted to respondent No.4 Smt. Shanti Devi. The lease granted in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi was not executed by the respondents in view of the directions given by the State Government, therefore, aforesaid Smt. Shanti Devi preferred a writ petition before this Court wherein the respondent No. 4 concealed material facts but as the respondent department shown willingness to execute lease deed, this Court disposed of writ petition with following directions :- "In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that they are agreeable to execute the agreement provided all the formalities required under Rule 19(1) of the rules have been complied with by the petitioner, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case. If the petitioner has already completed the formalities envisaged under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 19 then the respondents will execute the agreement within two months from today. If the conditions required under Sub-rule (1) of the Rule 19 are not complied with then the respondents will be free to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and it is not necessary to execute the agreement if the law so permits." 4. This Court while admitting the present writ petition for hearing also pleased to grant an interim order directing the respondents not to execute lease deed in favour of respondent No. 4 Smt. Shanti Devi. The interim order referred above was confirmed by this Court till disposal of the writ petition by order dated 210.1994. 5. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents. The respondents have accepted that a wrong note was made by clerk concerned Shri Ghanshyam Sharma on basis of which the application submitted by the original petitioner was rejected by the Mining Engineer. 6. I consider it appropriate to quote relevant portion of the reply submitted by the respondents which reads as under :-"So far as the factual aspect of the matter is concerned it is submitted that the petitioner filed an application on 28.6.1990 for allotment of mining lease for granite. The concerned clerk, however, put a note to this effect that the petitioner is holding two mining leases for mesonary stone near village Kitpliya and, therefore, according to him the mining leases to the petitioner cannot exceed two in view of proviso attached to Sub-rule 2 of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1986. Relying upon his office note, the then Assistant Mining Engineer sent proposal to the Mining Engineer for rejection of the petitioners application vide letter dated 17.1.1991. In pursuance of this proposal, the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur issued an order dated 22.1991 for rejection of the petitioners application. However, after some time, the Assistant Mining Engineer came to know that his previous proposal for rejection of the application was not factually correct because the concerned clerk Shri Ghanshyam Sharma did not give correct noting on the file. He found that the petitioner was holding two mining leases for masonary stone and his third application was not pertaining to this kind of mineral. He applied for granite which is a different kind of mineral. He found that the petitioner was holding two mining leases for masonary stone and his third application was not pertaining to this kind of mineral. He applied for granite which is a different kind of mineral. When he came to know about these facts, he wrote a letter to the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur on 16.2.1991 for treating the earlier proposal dated 17.1.1991 as cancelled and simultaneously sent proposals for grant of mining lease in petitioners favour. The Mining Engineer, Jodhpur sent a letter on 8.1991 to the Assistant Mining Engineer, Barmer to make necessary enquiry in the matter whereupon Assistant Mining Engineer sent his enquiry report to the Mining Engineer vide letter dated 23.1992. Assistant Mining Engineer stated in the report that by mistake which was based on the office note of the concerned clerk, the proposals for rejection of the application were sent. As soon as it came to his knowledge, he wrote a letter to the Mining Engineer on 16.2.1991 for rectifying the mistake by canceling the previous proposal of rejection of the application. It appears from the record that in the mean time one Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Shri Mohanlal Sharma filed another application on 17.1.1991 for grant of mining lease for the same area. The Assistant Mining Engineer forwarded the application vide letter dated 26.1991 to the Mining Engineer for grant of mining lease in her favour. On receipt of this application, the Mining Engineer issued sanction order dated 30.8.1991. In pursuance of this order, the mining lease was executed and was signed by the petitioner as well as by the Assistant Mining Engineer Barmer. The lease agreement was sent to the mining Engineer for counter signatures but the same could not be done in view of Government Circular No. F.12(78) Khan/Gr. 2/91 dated 21.1992 whereby the State Government fixed cut off date for execution of lease agreements for granite upto 13.1992. Respondent No. 4 Shanti Devi filed a writ petition before this Honble High Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1502/92. This writ petition has already been disposed of with certain observations vide Judgment dated 7.1.1993. 7. From reading of the reply it is apparent that the application of the petitioners was rejected on a wrong pretext and, therefore, the decision of the respondents to reject application submitted by the petitioners is not at all sustainable in eye of law. This writ petition has already been disposed of with certain observations vide Judgment dated 7.1.1993. 7. From reading of the reply it is apparent that the application of the petitioners was rejected on a wrong pretext and, therefore, the decision of the respondents to reject application submitted by the petitioners is not at all sustainable in eye of law. The respondents are required to consider application of the petitioner for grant of mining lease afresh in accordance with law. 8. However, before parting with the case I would like to mention that in entire matter the ill-deeds of a clerk of the department are apparent. Smt. Shanti Devi (respondent No. 4) is mother of clerk concerned namely Ghanshyam Sharma . It appears that Shri Ghanshyam Sharma with view to favour Smt. Shanti Devi made a wrong note. The petitioners have suffered a unnecessary litigation because of wrong note made by the clerk concerned Shri Ghanshyam Sharma. Shri Ghanshyam Sharma is not party to the proceedings, therefore, I do not want to say much about his conduct. However, it is a case fit where an inquiry should be initiated against erring clerk Shri Ghanshyam Sharma under the relevant disciplinary rules. 9. In view of whatever stated above, the writ petition succeeds. The order impugned dated 22.1991 passed by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to consider application of the petitioner for grant of mining lease afresh in accordance with law. A cost of Rs. 10,000/-is imposed upon the respondents which is required to be paid to the petitioners. The respondents may recover this cost from erring clerk Shri Ghanshyam Sharma who made wrong note while forwarding the application submitted by the petitioners.