Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Gotan Limestone Khanij Udyog Pvt. ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 December, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Mithal, Dinesh Mehta
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. Advocate,
assisted by
Ms. Alankrita Sharma
Mr. Anjay Kothari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Gupta, Sr. Advocate,
assisted by
Mr. Ramit Mehta
Ms. Shweta Chauhan
Mr. Saurabh Maheshwari
Mr. Tarun Dudhia
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order 08/12/2022
1. By way of the present Intra-Court Appeal preferred under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, the appellant has challenged order dated 28.02.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, application seeking impleadment filed by the respondent No.5- J.K. Cement Limited has been allowed. (Downloaded on 15/12/2022 at 08:48:11 PM)
(2 of 6) [SAW-219/2022]
2. Though the case in hand has a chequered history, but for the present purposes, suffice it to state that appellant-writ petitioner has filed a writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12253/2019) challenging the order dated 28.11.2017, passed by the State Government (Joint Secretary, Department of Mines), whereby its application for transfer of the mining lease has been rejected.
3. Apart from the prayer to set aside the order of the State Government dated 28.11.2017, the petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be directed to consider the transfer of mining lease in its favour while treating the period from the date of determination of mining lease (16.12.2014) till such time that the mining lease is restored and possession is handed over to the petitioner, as Dias-Non.
4. While the writ petition filed by the appellant was pending, an impleadment application came to be filed by the respondent No.5, inter alia, stating that its rights are likely to be affected by any order to be passed in the writ petition under consideration, therefore, it be impleaded as respondent.
5. Detailed submissions were made and a plethora of judgments were cited by the present appellant so also the respondent No.5 before the learned Single Judge.
6. After considering the same, learned Single Judge has allowed the impleadment application filed by the respondent No.5, essentially on the following counts:
(i) If the petitioner's second prayer is granted and the period from 16.12.2014 till the time of handing over the possession of the mining lease is treated as Dias- (Downloaded on 15/12/2022 at 08:48:11 PM)
(3 of 6) [SAW-219/2022] Non, rights of the prospective applicants, including the applicant (respondent No.5) would be affected.
(ii) The applicant was a party to the earlier writ petition filed by the appellant (M/s Gotan Limestone Khanij Udyog Pvt. Ltd.) being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9669/2014; before the Division Bench and also before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, when not only the appeal filed by the present appellant was disposed of but also the separate SLP (being SLP No.23311/2015) filed by the applicant was disposed of.
(iii) The applicant's impleadment would not adversely affect the petitioner but in fact, would enable the Court to adjudicate rival claims.
7. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in accepting impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the respondent No.5 (J.K. Cement Limited), against which neither any relief has been claimed nor are any of its rights likely to be affected.
8. It was also argued that petitioner is dominus litis of his case and nobody can force himself into the litigation against the wishes of the petitioner/plaintiff, particularly, when none of his rights are prejudiced by the relief claimed in the writ petition.
9. While inviting Court's attention towards the pleadings and reliefs claimed, it was argued that the petitioner has simply sought restoration of its mining lease and none of the rights of the respondent No.5 (J.K. Cement Limited) are going to be affected, if the relief as claimed in the writ petition is granted. (Downloaded on 15/12/2022 at 08:48:11 PM)
(4 of 6) [SAW-219/2022]
10. Mr. Sudhir Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5, on the other hand, argued that not only the issue involved, even the rights involved herein are identical to the earlier writ petition filed by it (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9669/2014) and since, the application filed by his client in earlier writ petition was allowed and he was permitted to contest the case till Hon'ble the Supreme Court, there is no reason why the applicant- respondent No.5 should be denied such right in the case before learned Single Judge.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 submitted that after the impugned order was passed by learned Single Judge, the respondent No.5 has filed its reply/counter affidavit and the matter is ripe for hearing on 13.12.2022. Hence, no indulgence be granted in the present Intra-Court Appeal.
12. It was also argued that in the earlier round of litigation before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the Apex Court in its judgment reported in (2016) 4 SCC 469 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Gotan Lime Stone Khanji Udyog Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.) had restored the order cancelling petitioner's mining lease and the order dated 28.11.2017 impugned in the subject writ petition is an order passed in furtherance of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which had given a direction to the State to pass a fresh order after formulating the policy.
13. He argued that if the writ petition is decided in absence of the respondent No.5, its right to claim mining rights pursuant to an auction would be jeopardised, particularly, when Hon'ble the Supreme Court had given clear direction for conducting auction of (Downloaded on 15/12/2022 at 08:48:11 PM) (5 of 6) [SAW-219/2022] all the mining leases, including the mining lease that is the subject matter of the present writ petition.
14. Heard rival counsel and perused the relevant material.
15. It is not in dispute that newly impleaded respondent was a party to the earlier round of litigation before this Court and before Hon'ble the Supreme Court and that the issue in earlier writ petition so also in the present writ petition is, cancellation of the mining lease of the appellant-writ petitioner for having transferred the lease without prior permission.
16. We see no reason to keep the respondent No.5 away from the proceedings, particularly, when its application in earlier writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge in the year 2013 and the same attained finality.
17. It is to be noted that the writ petitioner has mentioned the name of the respondent No.5 (J.K. Cement Limited) at a number of places and has made averments concerning it. Hence, the newly added respondent may not be a necessary, but is a proper party.
18. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.5 (J.K. Cement Limited) has also filed writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.404/2013 and the same has been tagged with the writ petition filed by the appellant.
19. Since, the writ petition filed by the present appellant and writ petition filed by the respondent No.5 (J.K. Cement Limited) are required to be heard together, the newly added respondent will, in any case, have its say in the matter and therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by interfering in the impugned order, which is otherwise just and proper.
(Downloaded on 15/12/2022 at 08:48:11 PM)
(6 of 6) [SAW-219/2022]
20. That apart, the order impugned was passed by the learned Single Judge on 28.02.2022 and the newly added respondent has filed its reply/counter affidavit and the matter is ripe for hearing. Hence, there is no possibility of matter being dragged or prolonged.
21. Therefore, any intervention by us at this stage would not be expedient inasmuch as the respondent No.5 has filed its counter affidavit and the pleadings are complete. Striking the name of respondent No.5 from the array of respondents, even if deemed appropriate, is not advisable/warranted.
22. Learned Single Judge has exercised its discretion and has allowed impleadment application filed by the respondent. We do not find it to be a fit case to interfere in the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge.
23. The Intra-Court Appeal, therefore, fails.
(DINESH MEHTA),J (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ
41-pooja/-
(Downloaded on 15/12/2022 at 08:48:11 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)