Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 389 (RAJ)

Dilip Dixit v. State of Rajasthan

2008-02-07

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing order 24.04.2006 (Annex-18) as well as order dated 09.05.2006 (Annex-19), further praying that the entire proceeding culminating into the impugned order may also be quashed and set aside. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the Mining Department of the Government of Rajasthan had notified an area measuring 65.28 hectares for grant of lease for mineral soap-stone near village Odan, Tehsil Nathdwara (Rajasamand). The petitioner applied for the grant of lease in respect of the said areas as a whole but the petitioner was granted mining lease for areas measuring 44.92 hectares with effect from 15.02.1988 for period of 20 years. According to the petitioner, after 16 years on 16.05.2004, respondent No. 5 restrained the petitioner from operating the mining in the leased area. Though the petitioner filed reply, again a notice was given to the petitioner on 29.09.2004. That too was replied by the petitioner. Thereafter, without a by prior notice, the allotment of the mine in favour of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 04.03.2006 which is placed on record as Annex-27. 3. According to the petitioner, a pre-planned cancellation action was taken for the purpose of allotment of land in favour of respondent No. 6 and, as the petitioner; the matter was monitored at the level of the Chief Minister, respondent No. 2. The petitioner's claim is that after cancellation of his lease on 04.03.2006, the area was allotted illegally to respondent No. 6 India Heritage Foundation of Bangalore and the petitioner filed revision petition against the cancellation of his mining lease before the revisional authority, Central Government in the Ministry of Mines under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 along with application for condonation of delay and the same is pending with the Central Government. According to the petitioner, the revision petition was listed before the Central Tribunal on 05.11.2007 for admissibility hearing and was admitted and notices have already been issued. The respondents have been service with notice in the said revision petition. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the matter of the petitioner with regard to cancellation of ins mining lease is pending before the revisional authority but the respondents have illegally allotted the said area to respondent No. 6. 4. The respondents have been service with notice in the said revision petition. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the matter of the petitioner with regard to cancellation of ins mining lease is pending before the revisional authority but the respondents have illegally allotted the said area to respondent No. 6. 4. In the writ petition, it is specifically staled that all these proceedings for allotment of the area in favour of respondent No.6 is monitored at the level of the Chief Minister of the State. In para 7, it is specifically alleged that, "It appears that pre-planning for cancellation of the mining lease and allotment of land in favour of respondent No. 6 was being monitored at the level of Chief Minister the Respondent No. 3 because the copies of the letter dated 24.2.2006 was also endorsed to the Deputy Secretary (T) Chief Minister Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur as also to the Deputy Secretary (A) Chief Minister Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur." 5. According to the petitioner, the said allotment is totally illegal and the allotment has been made after converting the mining area in accordance with Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Unoccupied Government Agricultural Lands for the Construction of Schools, Colleges, Dispensaries, Dharamsalas and other Buildings of Public Utility) Rules, 1963 in favour of respondent No.6, which is totally illegal. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking interference by this Court in this writ petition. 6. After hearing the petitioner and perusing the entire pleadings of the case, first of all, it may be observed that it is admitted position of the case that, at present, there is no valid licence in favour of the petitioner and impugned cancellation is subject-matter of the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the revisional authority. The petitioner was allotted the mining lease in the year 1988 as per his contention for 20 years; but, due to violation of terms and conditions, the said mining lease was cancelled vide order dated 04.03.2006 (Annex-27) and, thereafter, the land was allotted for a pious charitable purpose to respondent No.6, a sister concern of Akshay Patra Foundation. As per communication dated 17.03.2006, if the respondent No.6 India Heritage Foundation of Bangalore will establish "Theme Park" and income will be utilised to perform the pious work of distribution of food by Akshay Patra Foundation, then, certainly it will be in the interest of public at large. As per communication dated 17.03.2006, if the respondent No.6 India Heritage Foundation of Bangalore will establish "Theme Park" and income will be utilised to perform the pious work of distribution of food by Akshay Patra Foundation, then, certainly it will be in the interest of public at large. Therefore, it cannot be said that the allotment has been made by the State Government with any gainful commercial purpose in view. Respondent No.6 is going to establish Theme Park for promotion of art and culture of the State and, therefore, benefits may be visualised and, so also, opportunities of employment will be generated. It is also envisaged that the earnings from the Project will be utilised for Akshay Patra Scheme tuned by the Foundation for providing mid-day meal to the needy persons. Therefore, I see no ground made out for interference in the orders passed by the State Government for allotment of the land in favour of respondent No.6. What to say of mala fide, no arbitrary action in reflected on the part of the State. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 7. While dismissing the writ petition, it is necessary to observe that the intention of filing this writ petition is apparently aimed at putting up a threat to the State Government, therefore, without there being substance to establish facts, allegations have been levelled vaguely against the Chief Minister of the State with an attempt to show that malafidely the Chief Minister took command of the matter at her level. This Court does not shut its door if a genuine grievance is made but at the same time, proceedings of this Court is not available as a tools of convenience to frighten public authority or public representative. Specific allegations with substantial proof alone move this Court to act in furtherance of justice and administration of justice is not meant for condemning the public representatives. In my opinion, without having any basis for establishing malafide, without specific allegations, the public representatives are sought to be threatened by interested persons and, in democracy, the responsibility of public weal and welfare is upon the public representatives who have been elected by the people. At the time of entertaining writ petitions, no individual can be allowed to outrage the prestige of public representatives. At the time of entertaining writ petitions, no individual can be allowed to outrage the prestige of public representatives. Such frivolous petitions cannot be entertained and for restriction of the, tendency it requires that cost must be imposed while dismissing the petition. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-Writ Petition Dismissed. *******