Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M/S Balaji Stone Crusher Comp vs State (Mines Department)Ors on 17 October, 2011
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. *** S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14436/2011. M/s. Balaji Stone Crusher Company Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. DATE OF ORDER : 17/10/2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI *** Mr. Vimal Choudhary, for petitioner. Mr. Jakir Hussain, AGC, for respondents.
Instant petition is directed against the order passed by the revisional authority declining to grant interim relief prayed for in the pending revision petition preferred by him u/Rule.47 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 vide order dt. 27/09/2011 (Anx.12) It has come on record that the Special Investigating Team made inspection reference of which has been mentioned in the order passed by the Mining Engineer Anx.9 dt. 23/08/2011 which has been passed after notice to show cause dt. 11/03/2011 being served and after due compliance of the principles of natural justice by the authority. Against the order of Mining Engineer quantifying the amount, which has to be recovered from the petitioner in regard to the illegal excavation, revision petition came to be preferred u/Rule. 47 of the Rules, 1986 alongwith an application for interim relief.
It appears that since the interim application filed could not be heard, at that stage, a writ petition CWP-13582/2011 came to be preferred by the petitioner in which primarily the grievance was that alongwith the revision petition, application for interim relief has been filed but the revisional authority has not heard the application for interim relief and at the same time, the department is proceeding further to make recovery from the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the Mining Engineer dt. 23/08/2011 and in absence of effective hearing being afforded to him for grant of interim relief prayed for alongwith revision petition preferred by the petitioner, his right of fair consideration to convince the revisional authority is being seriously jeopardized.
Taking note of the submissions made, the earlier writ petition No.13582/2011 preferred by the petitioner was disposed of by the Court on 26/09/2011 with liberty to the petitioner to file misc. application before the revisional authority for early hearing of his prayer for grant of interim relief and at the same time, it was also expected from the revisional authority that if such application is filed, the same may be examined and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. It appears that pursuant to order of the Court dt. 26/09/2011, the petitioner approached the revisional authority who has afforded him hearing and taking note of the submissions made and so also the Special Investigation Reports came on record, was not inclined to grant interim relief prayed for and the prayer for interim relief has been rejected vide order dt.27/09/2011.
Counsel for petitioner submits that Special Investigation Reports having not been served upon the petitioner and such reports have been prepared at the back of the petitioner and in these circumstances, the action, which has been taken by the respondents in making impugned recovery pursuant to the order of the Mining Engineer dt. 23/08/2011, pending revision petition, has resulted in seriously jeopardizing the rights of the petitioner and this has not been looked into by the revisional authority while passing the order rejecting the prayer for interim relief prayed for by the petitioner.
It will not be appropriate for this Court to give any opinion at this stage since the revision petition is still pending adjudication and what has been urged by counsel for petitioner is still to be examined by the revisional authority on merits. So far as the grant of interim relief is concerned, as per the principles being laid down, the authority has to examine not even the prima-facie case but also the balance of convenience and irreparable loss and if all the three ingredients found favour, judicial interference is exercised for grant of interim relief based on facts of each case.
In the instant case, the revisional authority, after taking note of the submissions made and also the material which came on record, was not inclined to grant interim relief prayed for and merely because what has been prayed for, if prima-facie has not been accepted by the authority, that cannot be considered to be a reason to hold that the judicial discretion has not been properly exercised by the revisional authority.
Before parting with the judgment, this Court would like to record that this has become a prevalent practice of approaching this Court against the refusal to grant interim relief. However, the scope of this Court in such matters is very limited and unless, the judicial discretion has been arbitrarily exercised or with some collateral reasons, it is ordinarily not available to interfere in the discretion being exercised by the authority particularly at the stage when the interim relief is being prayed for.
This Court does not find any apparent error being committed by the authority in passing the order declining to grant interim relief prayed for by the petitioner which may call for interference under its limited scope of judicial review u/Art. 226 of the Constitution.
Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
[AJAY RASTOGI], J.
Raghu/p.5/14436-CW-2011-Final.doc