Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Ram Singh Om Parkash vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 17 September, 2018
Bench: Mahesh Grover, Mahabir Singh Sindhu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.27132 of 2017(O&M)
Date of Decision : 17.09.2018
M/s Ram Singh Om Parkash
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU
Present: Mr. M.S.Randhawa, Advocate
for the petitioner.
....
MAHESH GROVER, J. (Oral)
CM-13915-CWP-2018 C.M.is allowed. Annexure P-9 is taken on record. CWP No.27132 of 2017(O&M) The petitioner prays for grant of mining lease which was once granted to him but an extension denied after expiry of the validity period of 20 years.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the instant petition is highly belated. The facts from the impugned order reveal that initially a lease was executed in favour of one Raghunath for 20 years w.e.f. 26.09.1961. During its pendency it was transferred to the petitioner on 19.11.1978. The first renewal was for a period of 20 years w.e.f. 26.09.1981 till 25.09.2001, whereafter the petitioner applied for another renewal on 03.07.2000 but was rejected by the State Government vide its order dated 19.02.2002. Instead of impugning the said order and taking it to its 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 02-10-2018 07:55:59 ::: CWP No.27132 of 2017(O&M) -2- logical end, another request for renewal was made which was again rejected on 10.05.2010. The reason for declining the prayer for renewal was the sub-optimal use and unscientific mining.
Be that as it may, the reason for declining the request would be another issue. The foremost that falls for our consideration is whether we should interfere with an order which was adverse to the petitioner firstly in the year 2002 and then in the year 2010 with the mining lease relating back to 1961.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the petition is hopelessly barred by delay and laches. The lease originated in the year 1961 and its last renewal expired in 2001 with a rejection for subsequent renewal coming in the year 2002. It was open to the petitioner to agitate his claim and take it to its logical end at that point of time, but having failed to do so, we would decline interference on the ground of its being highly belated.
Dismissed.
(MAHESH GROVER)
JUDGE
17.09.2018 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU)
dss JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 02-10-2018 07:56:00 :::