Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2663 (RAJ)

Chanchal Jain v. State of Rajasthan

2019-10-14

DINESH MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs: "1. To quash and set aside order dated 03.05.2018 (Annexure-36), passed by the respondents; 2. To quash and set aside orders dated 02.05.2014(Annexure-10) and 29.05.2014 (Annexure-11), passed by the respondents; 3. Hon'ble Court mercifully be pleased to direct the respondents to decide the application dated 05.06.2017 afresh by directing to grant the appropriate reliefs/compensation to compensate the petitioner for irreparable huge financial losses/damages, personal and legal injury, agony, mental torture, grave harm etc caused to the petitioner on account of wrongful revocation of license of the petitioner and ruining whole business career and young life of the petitioner forever for no fault since the last 23 years along with income Tax Exemption Certificate and to grant all other requisite reliefs in terms of application dated 05.06.2017 and within 2 weeks enabling the petitioner to seek justice from the appropriate authority especially in view of orders dated 04.02.2014; 01.04.2014 and 21.04.2017 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court to meet the end of justice; 4. To initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents / the comtemners and be punished for willfully committing contempt of this Hon'ble Court in accordance with the law for concealment of important material facts of the case and for interfering with the due course of judicial proceedings with intention to obtain favourable orders from the Hon'ble Court; 5. Cost of this petition and the entire litigation expenses since the year 1996; 6. Pass such other and further order in the interest of justice as deemed fit and just." 2. The facts, though have been made copious by none other than the petitioner herself, who has approached various fora in the period of last 22 years, but suffice it to mention that the petitioner had applied for grant of prospecting license in May, 1996 and two prospecting licenses (PL No.8/1996 and PL No.7/1996) came to be issued to her on 15.01.1998 and 27.01.1998 respectively. Whereafter for one reason or the other, the petitioner could not get her land demarcated and, thus, no mining lease could be extended in her favour. 3. After numerous representations and litigations, a writ petition came to be filed in the Delhi High Court, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 01.03.2016, interalia requiring the petitioner to file civil suit, in accordance with law. 3. After numerous representations and litigations, a writ petition came to be filed in the Delhi High Court, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 01.03.2016, interalia requiring the petitioner to file civil suit, in accordance with law. Whereagainst, the petitioner preferred a Letters Patent Appeal, wherein an objection was raised by the respondents' counsel that the writ petition, was not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction and in view thereof, the petitioner sought withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to avail appropriate remedy in a court of competent jurisdiction or before an appropriate authority. Thus, the writ petition as well as the LPA, came to be dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 21.04.2017; relevant portion whereof is being reproduced hereinfra:- 1. An objection is taken by Mr. Amit Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Vikas Malik, learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the writ petition Civil No.4864/2014 was not maintainable in the Delhi High Court inasmuch as this Court has no territorial jurisdiction with regard to the subject matter thereof. 2. In view thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from Mr. G.N. Jain, attorney of the appellant, prays that the impugned order dated 1st March, 2016 may be set aside and the writ petition may be permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to invoke an appropriate remedy in a competent jurisdiction or before an appropriate authority. 3. This appears to be a fair request. In view thereof, the order dated 1st March, 2016 passed in WPC No.4864/2014 is hereby set aside and quashed. 4. The request of the appellant is accepted and the writ petition (Civil) No.4864/2014 and present appeal are permitted to be withdrawn with liberty, as prayed for. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti." 4. Pursuant to the order aforesaid, the petitioner approached the respondent by way of filing a representation dated 05.06.2017. 4. The request of the appellant is accepted and the writ petition (Civil) No.4864/2014 and present appeal are permitted to be withdrawn with liberty, as prayed for. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti." 4. Pursuant to the order aforesaid, the petitioner approached the respondent by way of filing a representation dated 05.06.2017. Petitioner's aforesaid representation came to be rejected by the State Government, vide order dated 03.05.2018, interalia observing that in light of Delhi High Court's order, petitioner's representation had already been decided on 02.05.2014; the petitioner has failed to get demarcation of the land; petitioner has not taken up any proceeding/remedy against the revocation of prospecting license vide order dated 08.03.2000; and the area in question falls within the Arawali Hills, thus, no mining lease can be granted as directed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 16.12.2002. 5. Noticing the facts aforesaid, not only the petitioner's request for grant of mining lease, but her claim for compensation was also rejected for being hypothetical. 6. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged not only the order dated 03.05.2018, but also the order dated 02.05.2014 and 29.05.2014. 7. Mr. G.L. Jain, having power of attorney in his favour, submitted that the respondents had denied the petitioner her legitimate right of getting mining lease in furtherance of her application followed by the prospective license dated 15.12.1998, issued in her favour. 8. He argued that some unscrupulous persons have forged her signatures on documents-field book and demarcation report and despite her persistence, no heed was paid and on the basis of such forged signatures, the petitioner's rights has been denied. In support of such claim, the petitioner invited Court's attention towards FSL Report dated 07.02.2013 (Annex.6) and contended that despite clear report, respondents have not taken any remedial measure and have refused to grant mining lease to her. 9. In response to Court's query, "In the face of the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated 16.12.2002, since the area in question falls in Aravali Hills Range, how mining lease can be granted?", Mr. Jain responded that the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court prohibiting grant of mining leases in the area, has been passed on 16.12.2002, whereas the petitioner's application for grant of mining lease was indisputably filed prior to such judgment. Jain responded that the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court prohibiting grant of mining leases in the area, has been passed on 16.12.2002, whereas the petitioner's application for grant of mining lease was indisputably filed prior to such judgment. He added that had the petitioner's rights not been denied on the basis of forged signatures, the petitioner, perhaps, would have been allotted mining lease prior to the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. 10. Mr. Digvijay Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the petitioner has firstly approached improper forum, viz, Delhi High Court for redressal of her grievance and having failed there, she has approached this Court. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards a Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court dated 09.03.2011, rendered in an appeal preferred by the petitioner and submitted that petitioner's conduct is not worthy of any indulgence. He further pointed out that even if petitioner's best case is accepted and for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the petitioner's rights have been denied on the basis of forged signature, no relief can be granted to her, as the area in question is a prohibited area in view of judgment dated 16.12.2002, passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as the same falls within the Aravli Hills Range. It was further pointed out that the petitioner was only having a prospective license in her favour and after the amendments of 2015 and 2017 in Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. He aruged that after such amendment all mining leases are required to be granted by publication; except the applicants in whose favour Letter of Indent (LOI) had been issued have been saved, that too with certain conditions, much less cases of the persons who were holding only prospective licenses in their favour. He submitted that the petitioner's representation had been rejected on 02.05.2014 and 29.05.2014, and the present order dated 03.05.2018 has been passed by the State Government, in pursuance of another representation filed by her. The reasons of rejection, however, continued to be the same. 11. Having heard the Power of Attorney holder of petitioner and Mr. He submitted that the petitioner's representation had been rejected on 02.05.2014 and 29.05.2014, and the present order dated 03.05.2018 has been passed by the State Government, in pursuance of another representation filed by her. The reasons of rejection, however, continued to be the same. 11. Having heard the Power of Attorney holder of petitioner and Mr. Jasol and on the perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be granted any relief in extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court for the following reasons:- (1) The petitioner was granted prospective license on 15.01.1998 in furtherance of her application filed in May, 1996. The order dated 03.05.2018 (Annex.36) records that the petitioner's prospective license has been revoked on 08.03.2000, which fact has neither been controverted nor challenged by way of any proceedings. (2) The area in question indisputably falls within the Aravli Hills Range and, therefore, a prohibited area for grant of mining lease in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated 16.12.2002. (3) In view of the subsequent amendment in Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, particularly after insertion of Section 10A in the Act w.e.f. 12.01.2015, all pending applications stood rejected. As such, even if the petitioner's case is accepted, she cannot be granted any relief as there is not even an LOI in her favour and she is claiming her right only on the basis of prospective license, issued way back on 15.01.1998. 12. The petitioner's other prayer that she is entitled for cost and damages, cannot be granted by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the purpose aforesaid, the petitioner is required to file a civil suit by leading cogent evidence, not only with respect to her rights but also with respect to loss, she has purportedly suffered. 13. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any substance in the present writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 14. The stay application also stands dismissed accordingly.