Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pashupati Agro Fin Pvt. Ltd. vs Secretary The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2015
---1---
W. P. No.5038/2011
20.1.2015
Shri Siddharth Gupta, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Govt. Advocate for
respondents/State.
Shri Abhijeet A. Awasthy, counsel for Respondent No.3. Heard counsel for the parties. As short question is involved, the petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent.
This petition takes exception to the order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 19.1.2010 (Annexure P-1) setting aside the prospecting license granted in favour of the writ petitioner on 10.4.2007.
The moot question that raised in the present petition, is that, the Respondent No.3 had no locus to file revision because he had never applied for grant of prospecting license for Khasra No.91 at Village - Darshini, Tehsil Sihora, District- Jabalpur. The writ petitioner, admittedly, had applied for grant of prospecting license qua Khasra No.91 and other Khasra numbers. The writ petitioner was accordingly granted prospecting license for Khasra No.91. The question about locus of Respondent No.3 to challenge the said grant was not specifically raised before the Revisional Authority - either in the response filed before the Revisional Authority or through oral arguments. However, that plea is specifically taken in the writ petition in Paragraph No.5.6. The question is, as to
---2---
whether not raising plea before the Revisional Authority amounts waiver of the said plea. The fact remains that the Respondent No.3 in the reply filed in response to the writ petition has not countered the assertion made by the writ petitioner in Paragraph No.5.6. In absence of specific plea in that behalf would amount to admission of assertion made by the writ petitioner and in the context of that admitted position, question would arise whether the Respondent No.3 can be permitted and had locus to challenge the order granting prospecting license in favour of the writ petitioner in respect of Khasra No.91.
In our opinion, prima facie, if the Respondent No.3 had not applied for grant of prospecting license for Khasra No.91 could not be permitted to challenge the grant in favour of writ petitioner, for want of locus. However, to give opportunity to both the parties to pursue this contention, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and relegate the parties before the Revisional Authority, who may first examine about the locus of Respondent No.3 to maintain revision against the decision of the Authority for granting the prospecting license in favour of the writ petitioner in respect of Khara No.91 at Village - Darshini, Tehsil Sihora, District-Jabalpur. If that question is answered in favour of Respondent No.3, the Revisional Authority may proceed to decide the revision on its own merits, in accordance with law, keeping in mind the extant Regulations and the decision of the Supreme Court in
---3---
the cases of Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others Vs. Union of India and others - Writ Petition (Civil) No.423/2010 and Dr. Subramaniam Swamy Vs. Union of India and others - Writ Petition (Civil) No.10/2011 decided on 2.2.2012 reported in (2012) 3 SCC 1, including the plea taken by the State Government before us through counsel that no fruitful purpose would be served by examining the question for grant of prospecting license as the period of license was limited till one year from the grant dated 6.9.2009.
Accordingly, this petition succeeds on the above terms and the parties are relegated before the Revisional Authority, who must decide the revision application expeditiously, after giving due opportunity to all concerned.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
(A. M. Khanwilkar) (C. V. Sirpurkar)
Chief Justice Judge
Anchal