Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Gotan Limestone Khanij Udyog Pvt. ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 April, 2022
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Madan Gopal Vyas
(1 of 3) [SAW-219/2022]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 219/2022
M/s Gotan Limestone Khanij Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Having Its
Registered Office At D7, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Rajasthan
Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder, Mr. Shreyans Kavdia S/o
Shri C.k. Kavdia, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of D7, Shastri
Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Mines
Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Joint Secretary, Mines (Gr. 2) Department, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Rajasthan,
Udaipur.
4. Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Gotan, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur.
5. J.k. Cement Limited At Village Gotan, Tehsil Merta City,
District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Adv.
Assisted by Ms. Alankrita Sharma
Mr. Anajay Kothari
Mr. Madhvendra Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ramit Mehta
Mr. PK Bhalla
Mr. Tarun Dudhia
Ms. Shweta Chauhan
HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN
SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Order 11/04/2022 Heard on prayer for stay.
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 08:34:50 PM)
(2 of 3) [SAW-219/2022] Learned counsel for appellant would argue that so far as the newly added respondent no.5 is concerned, he is only an applicant in respect of part of the land, in respect of which, the appellant has been claiming grant of lease by way of transfer. Whether or not, his representation was rightly rejected, is the issue arising for consideration in the writ petition, and therefore, newly added respondent whose application for impleadment has been allowed, is not a necessary and not even proper party as he is not been in the possession of part of the land in dispute.
According to him after the order of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Gotan Lime Stone Khanij Udyog Pvt. Ltd. & Anr reported in (2016)4 SCC 469, the State Government has amended the rules allowing transfer of lease in the manner prescribed under rule 27 sub-rule (7) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (for short 'the Rules of 2017). Therefore, in any case, in the changed scenario, the claim of the newly added respondent for being made a party, is not sustainable in law.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent (party allowed to be impleaded as party-respondent by the impugned order) would submit that the land in respect of which, the appellant is claiming transfer, is also part of the land and is a subject matter of claim of the newly impleaded respondent and its petition is also pending before this Court. It is also submitted that in earlier rounds of litigations before this Court, the newly impleaded respondent was a party and after hearing it, order came to be passed and against the said order, not only the State of Rajasthan, but also the newly impleaded respondent filed SLP before the Supreme Court and the case was decided, therefore in (Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 08:34:50 PM) (3 of 3) [SAW-219/2022] the second round, when the application of the appellant has again been rejected by the State, newly added respondent is not only merely a proper party but also a necessary party.
Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and more particularly taking into consideration the land in respect of which newly added respondent has raised claim for allotment and in respect of which, a petition is also pending before this Court, forms part of the land which is the subject matter of the writ petition filed by the present appellant- writ petitioners and that, in the earlier round of litigation, newly added respondent was heard, without there being any objection, we are not inclined to stay the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by impleading the applicant as respondent no.5 in the writ petition.
The stay application is, therefore, rejected. The appeal itself be listed for hearing after three weeks. Copy of the memo of appeal alongwith documents be supplied to learned counsel appearing for respondents within a week.
This being the position, the parties would not be allowed to add any additional pleadings.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACJ 12-nidhi/-
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 08:34:50 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)