Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 97 (RAJ)

Munni Devi v. The State of Rajasthan

2015-01-12

ARUN BHANSALI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.12.2014 passed by the District Judge, Pali, whereby the application filed by the petitioners seeking issuance of ravanna books by the respondent department has been rejected. 2. The petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction; the suit came to be dismissed by the trial court by its judgment and decree dated 14.11.2013. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed first appeal. 4. The First Appellate Court by its order dated 17.12.2013 granted order regarding maintaining status quo. It appears that in terms of the order passed by the appellate court on 17.12.2013, the appellants continued to excavate the mineral and the mineral was being transported out under the ravanna books issued by the respondent department. 5. An application under Section 151 CPC was filed by the petitioners complaining that the respondents have stopped the issuance of ravanna books and therefore, they may be directed to issue the ravanna books. 6. A reply to the application was filed by the respondent department. It was inter-alia indicated that as the lease has not been renewed and the suit of the plaintiffs had been dismissed, they were not entitled for issuance of ravanna books. 7. The First Appellate Court by order dated 11.12.2014 came to the conclusion that the order dated 17.12.2013 did not envisage issuance of ravanna books and if the said order dated 17.12.2013 was violated the petitioners would have taken proceedings and found that in the facts and circumstances it was not justified to order issuance the ravanna books. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that ever since passing of the status quo order by the trial court during the pendency of the suit and by the First Appellate Court on 17.12.2013, the respondent department has never raised the objections regarding issuance of the ravanna books and suddenly the action has been taken malafide. 9. It is submitted that the petitioners are in possession of consent to operate from the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board and the dead rent has been deposited till 31.3.2015 and therefore, the respondents may be directed to issue the ravanna books. 10. 9. It is submitted that the petitioners are in possession of consent to operate from the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board and the dead rent has been deposited till 31.3.2015 and therefore, the respondents may be directed to issue the ravanna books. 10. It is further submitted that on account of the fact that no objection was raised during the pendency of the suit and the appeal, the petitioners continued to excavate the mineral and huge mineral excavated by them is lying at the mine and in absence of the ravanna books, the petitioners are unable to move the same resulting in huge financial loss to the petitioners. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief as claimed, as on the disposal of the suit, the petitioners had no right and passing of the status quo cannot arm the petitioners either with the right to excavate mineral and/or to get issued the ravanna books. It is further indicated that due to mistake of the clerk, ravanna books were issued earlier. Ultimately, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed. 12. I have considered the rival submissions. 13. The suit was filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the cancellation of the lease and rejection of the renewal. The suit came to be dismissed by the trial court on 14.11.2013 and the interim order for maintaining status quo was passed by the appellate court on 14.11.2013. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the suit and after passing of the order dated 17.12.2013 by the first appellate court, the petitioners continued to operate the mines and the respondents did not interfere and/or stop the petitioners for operating the mine and on the other hand, the ravanna books were issued from time to time to deal with excavated mineral. 14. The plea raised by the respondents that the ravanna books were issued by mistake of a clerk appears to be a mere after thought and cannot be continuances in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. However, it is also true that the order of status quo passed by the appellate court cannot be stretched to entitle the petitioners to work the mine/excavate mineral and then to deal with the same. 16. 15. However, it is also true that the order of status quo passed by the appellate court cannot be stretched to entitle the petitioners to work the mine/excavate mineral and then to deal with the same. 16. Keeping in view the fact that the status quo order was understood by the petitioners and the respondents in a particular manner and both the parties acted under the order till July, 2014, whereby the petitioners have been excavating mineral and ravanna books were being issued by the respondents and the fact that the petitioners have excavated mineral during the period till this date, to the extent that the mineral has been excavated by the petitioner, it would be just and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case to permit the petitioners to deal with the excavated mineral only. 17. In view of the above, it is directed that : (a)- henceforth i.e. w.e.f. 14.1.2015 the petitioners shall not work the mine/excavate the mineral during the pendency of the appeal before the first appellate court; (b)- the respondents shall issue ravanna books to the petitioners so as to deal with the excavated mineral already lying at the mining site only; (c)- the respondents shall be entitled to inspect the site on 14th itself and make assessment of the mineral lying at the site and prepare a report so as to ensure the quantity of the goods lying there at and that the working of the mines has been stopped; (d)- the appellate court is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date the order is place before it. Any observation made hereinbefore shall not prejudice either side.The writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.Petition Dismissed. *******