Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 858 (RAJ)

Mukesh Kumar Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2015-04-16

ALOK SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. A challenge has been made to the order dated 6.4.2015 passed by Joint Secretary, Mines & Geology Department Jaipur on the petitioner's revision against the order dated 13.5.2013 whereby mining lease in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. 2. Mr. Lokesh Sharma, counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is vitiated by denial of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that albeit the name of counsel for the petitioner has indeed been recorded in the aforesaid order and arguments allegedly made on 31.3.2015 attributed to him, but the fact remains that the petitioner's counsel did not appear before the Revising Authority on 31.3.2015, in view of the fact that next date in the matter was fixed as 13.7.2015 as evident from the "Peshi" Register maintained by the Reader of the Revising Authority. He submits that the writ petition is liable to be allowed on this ground alone. 3. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents submits that the revision petition was never adjourned to 13.7.2015 and the matter, as per "peshi" register was fixed on 31.3.2015, when a request was conveyed through the reader of the court to the Revising Authority for adjournment of the case to 13.7.2015. The request was refused and the matter was taken up for hearing on 31.3.2015 itself. It was then adjourned to 6.4.2015 for pronouncement of judgment. An affidavit by the Revising Authority has been filed in support of the contention. The AAG submitted that this court is thus seized with an affidavit on oath against another affidavit on oath with regard to facts as they transpired before the Revising Authority on 31.3.2015. It has been further submitted that in any event of the matter, albeit the Revising Authority is not empowered to review its order, yet on the ground of alleged denial of principles of natural justice, the petitioner instead of approaching this court be directed to move application for recall of the order dated 6.4.2015. It has also been submitted that there is a presumption in favour of the recording in the judgment dated 6.4.2015 that the petitioner's counsel was heard on 31.3.2015 and there is no material to rebut it. 4. Mr. It has also been submitted that there is a presumption in favour of the recording in the judgment dated 6.4.2015 that the petitioner's counsel was heard on 31.3.2015 and there is no material to rebut it. 4. Mr. Lokesh Sharma, counsel for the petitioner submits that it has not been denied that the "peshi" register in the court of revising authority does indeed indicate that on the matter having coming up on 31.3.2015 it was adjourned to 13.7.2015. He submits that thereafter the Revising Authority may have proceeded to hear the matter and adjourned it for 6.4.2015 for pronouncement of judgment. It has been submitted that however neither the counsel for the petitioner nor the petitioner were present before the Revising Authority on the said date i.e. 31.3.2015 nor was the matter argued on the said date. In fact entry in the secretariat, where the court of Revising Authority functions, are only allowed on a pass being issued, and neither the petitioner nor his counsel sought nor were issued any pass for entry into the secretariat on 31.3.2015. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. Without entering into the controversy with regard to the question whether the matter was heard by the Revising Authority on 31.3.2015 or adjourned to 13.7.2015, in the over all facts of the I would be inclined to set aside the order dated 6.4.2015 only on the ground that prima facie from the material produced in the course of hearing, including the "peshi" register of 31.3.2015, it appears to have been in breaches of the principles of natural justice. The petition is allowed and matter is remanded to the Revising Authority to be decided on 5.5.2015. No adjournment shall be sought or granted except for unavoidable reasons stated in the application for adjournment filed in writing. And if the matter is adjourned, it shall be taken up for hearing on the day following and finally decided. No fresh notice would be required to be issued to parties for the said date by the Revising Authority. Notice to counsel for the petitioner shall constitute notice to the petitioner himself. So to for the respondent. Counsel for the parties consent to the said direction being made as to service. 7. Till decision of the revision on remand, status quo as obtained on April 6, 2015 shall be restored. 8. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.