Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1568 (RAJ)

Classic Marbles v. State of Rajasthan

2012-07-17

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed by M/s Classic Marbles, through its power of attorney holder Vishambhar S/o Shanker Lal, R/o Banswara. The petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 20.3.2012, by which, the respondent Department rejected the renewal application dated 28.11.1992 filed by original allottee in respect of mining licence for mining lease No. 127/1982 which was allotted the late Abdul Karim through registered licence on 10.6.1983 for 10 years. 2. According to facts of the case, mining lease for mineral marble near village Tripura Sundari was granted in favour of late Abdul Karim bearing M.L. No. 127/1982 for a period of 10 years from 12.5.1983. The original allottee Abdul Karim applied for first renewal of the mining lease before the respondents on 28.11.1992 for further period of 20 years. The application filed for renewal was kept pending and during pendency of the said application original allottee Abdul Karim died on 14.2.2002. Thereafter, out of 9 legal heirs of late Abdul Karim including his widow, 4 legal heirs constituted a firm M/s Classic Marbles and, for mutation of their names, they filed an application in the office of the Assistant Mining Engineer, Banswara, Remaining 5 legal heirs of late Abdul Karim gave their no-objection with regard to mutation applied by the aforesaid partners of the firm M/s Classic Marbles. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Banswara made mutation vide office order dated 2.2.2006 in the name of M/s Classic Marbles. Admittedly, before passing the mutation order on 2.2.2006 by the Assistant Mining Engineer, Banwara, 3 more partners were included in the partnership firm viz., Parmeshwar Agrawal, Vinod Agrawal and Vikas Agrawal and their names were registered in the office of the Registrar of Firms on 31.1.2006. 3. After execution of the supplementary contract on 20.1.2006, the firm was re-constituted and all the legal heirs of original allottee late Abdul Karim left the partnership firm and 4 new partners were included as partners in the aforesaid firm M/s Classic Marbles. However, the above facts were not brought to the notice of the Department by the legal heirs of original allottee late Abdul Karim till 28.9.2006. The respondent Department vide order dated 2.5.2011 while exercising power under Rule 72 of the Rajasthan Minor Concession Rules. However, the above facts were not brought to the notice of the Department by the legal heirs of original allottee late Abdul Karim till 28.9.2006. The respondent Department vide order dated 2.5.2011 while exercising power under Rule 72 of the Rajasthan Minor Concession Rules. 1986 declared all the proceedings null and void and passed order to take possession of the mining lease area immediately and, in pursuance of that, on 5.5.2011 the possession of the mining area was taken by the Government. 4. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Banswara made recommendation to the Government for rejecting the renewal application dated 28.11.1992 and, in pursuance of that, Addl. Director (Mines), Zone Udaipur rejected the application for renewal dated 28.11.1992 vide impugned order dated 20.3.2012 while forfeiting the amount deposited for renewal. The petitioners have challenged the validity of order dated 20.3.2012 passed by the Addl. Director (Mines) on various grounds. 5. The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that no notice was given prior to passing of the said order which is totally unwarranted. It is also submitted that other litigation is also pending before this Court filed by the petitioner firm, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards Rule 8 in which there is provision for disposal of application for grant and renewal of mining lease, so also, Rule 74 under which there is provision for granting status after death of applicant for mining lease of a quarry and submits that after death of the original allottee the petitioner firm was constituted by his legal heirs and mutation was made in their favour', therefore, before passing the impugned order the petitioner firm was to be given opportunity, of hearing for the purpose of deciding application for renewal dated 28.11.1992 in respect of M.L. No. (new number) 144/1992; but, without providing any opportunity of hearing straight away the application for renewal has been rejected, therefore, it is obvious that action of the respondent in rejecting the application for renewal against the principle of natural justice. Hence, the order impugned may be quashed. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the entire record of the case. 8. Undisputedly, Abdul Karim was original allottee of the mining quarry M.L. No. 127/1982 and said allotment was made in his favour on 10.6.1983 for a period of 10 years. Hence, the order impugned may be quashed. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the entire record of the case. 8. Undisputedly, Abdul Karim was original allottee of the mining quarry M.L. No. 127/1982 and said allotment was made in his favour on 10.6.1983 for a period of 10 years. Said M.L. No. 127/1982 was later on renumbers M.L. No. 144/1992, therefore, application was filed by the original allottee 011 28.11.1992 which was kept pending for years together by the respondent Department.- On 14.2.2002. during the pendency of the application filed for renewal, the original allottee Abdul Karim died. Thereafter, out of 9 legal heirs, 4 legal heirs constituted a firm known as M/s Classic Marbles and filed application for mutation of their names in the revenue record. The remaining 5 legal heirs gave their no-objection. The fact remains that the above application for renewal was not decided by the respondents and by virtue of Rule 8(2) of the Rules of 1986 the legal heirs of late Abdul Karim remained in possession. 9. It is very strange that 3 device has been adopted by the present partners to send out legal heirs of late Abdul Karim from the business, therefore, some private persons were further included in the partnership firm and, at present, none of the legal heirs of late Abdul Karim-the original allottee and person who filed the application for renewal-is partner of the firm M/s Classic Marbles after 21.2.2006. 10. In my opinion, after 21.2.2006, if no legal heir of allottee late Abdul Karim remained partner of the aforesaid firm, then, it cannot be said that the firm is entitled for renewal in accordance with Rule 74 of the Rules of 1986 because the said rule is meant for legal representatives of the deceased allottee. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out how the right to renewal devolved upon the firm completely held by partners other than the legal representatives of original allottee. Obviously, at the time of deciding the renewal application dated 28.11.1992 there was no right accrued in favour of the petitioner M/s Classic Marbles to claim opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out how the right to renewal devolved upon the firm completely held by partners other than the legal representatives of original allottee. Obviously, at the time of deciding the renewal application dated 28.11.1992 there was no right accrued in favour of the petitioner M/s Classic Marbles to claim opportunity of hearing. The renewal of licence could be made in favour of the legal representatives of original allottee in accordance with Rule 74 and admittedly, the day on which, the order impugned is passed none of the legal representatives of late allottee Abdul Karim was partner of M/s Classic Marbles. 11. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner firm has no right to challenge the rejection order dated 20.3.2012 passed upon the application filed for renewal by late allottee Abdul Karim. It is also worthwhile to observe that during the pendency of the renewal application if anything is done by the legal heirs without informing the Department then, obviously the Department is under no legal obligation to renew the quarry licence. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in this writ petition to challenge the order impugned. 12. Consequently, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******