Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mujib Ur Rehman Son Of Shri Akbar vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 January, 2022
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3865/2019
Mujib Ur Rehman Son Of Shri Akbar, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To Government,
Mines Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Bharatpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhusudan Singh Rajpurohit for Ms. Alankrita Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Zakir Hussain, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN JUDGMENT/ORDER Reserved on 04/01/2022 Pronounced on 13 /01/2022
1. Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 5.9.2018 passed by the Mining Engineer, Bharatpur that is respondent No.2.
2. Brief facts of the case are that one mining lease was granted on 9.3.2010 in favour of the petitioner for a period of twenty years that is from 22.03.2010 to 21.03.2030 which was thereafter registered.
3. On 11.5.2012, Mining Engineer canceled mining lease allotted to the petitioner for the reason that area on ML No.372/05 was overlapping with the ML No.756/03 of Balmat Singh, the first (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 09:41:04 AM) (2 of 5) [CW-3865/2019] successful lease deed holder and since the application of mining lease No.756/03 was made prior to the application of the petitioner and the lease in question allotted to the petitioner was not meeting out mining area criteria due to overlapping, the mining lease was canceled on 19.6.2012.
4. Against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Director (Mines Department), Jaipur and thereafter before the Deputy Secretary, Mines by way of revision but by way of concurring and speaking finding, the said grievance was decided against the petitioner against which the petitioner preferred Revision Petition on 29.9.2014 but cancellation of mining lease of the petitioner was upheld being contrary to Rule 72 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986.
5. It is noteworthy to mention that by way of Review Petition before the High Court, it was submitted that after canceling of the mining lease of the petitioner, the said mining lease area has been kept vacant and the mining lease of ML No.756/03 of Balmat Singh has been rejected by the department vide order dated 15.04.2013. The Review Petition was allowed with the direction that as the area has become free, the matter was remanded to the Mining Engineer, Bharatpur for providing an opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate order taking into consideration the subsequent development in the case and to pass fresh orders as required in law following the principles of natural justice.
6. On 14.9.2017, the learned Mining Engineer, after hearing the representative, canceled mining lease of the petitioner on the ground of violation of Rule 72 of the Rules of 1986 and further held that the mining application of the petitioner comes under the (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 09:41:04 AM) (3 of 5) [CW-3865/2019] lapse category as per notification of the State Government dated 3.4.2013.
7. The said order was challenged before the learned Additional Director, Mining and Geology, who allowed the appeal vide order dated 12.4.2018 and set aside the order dated 14.9.2017 and remanded the matter to the Mining Engineer to decide case of the petitioner in the light of the High Court order dated 6.3.2017 passed in review petition.
8. After hearing at length, vide order dated 5.9.2018 learned Mining Engineer, Bharatpur again dismissed the representation of the petitioner and upheld the order of cancellation of mining lease on account of violation of Rule 72 of the Rules 1986 i.e. overlapping of an area, not meeting out minimum lease criteria and secondly, lapse of application in terms of notification of the State Government dated 3.4.2013.
9. Being aggrieved against the impugned order dated 5.9.2018, present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while reiterating the submissions and adding that notification dated 3.4.2013 has been set aside by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in the case of Federation of Sands Stone Mining Vs. State of Rajasthan in DB SAW No.4241/2013 and secondly; Mr. Balwat Singh, the first successful lease holder is no longer interested in the case and is not agitating the issue.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that after providing adequate opportunity of hearing by way of a speaking order, the learned respondent No.2 has held for violation of Rule 72 of the Rules of 1986 and secondly for proceedings being lapsed in terms of the notification dated (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 09:41:04 AM) (4 of 5) [CW-3865/2019] 3.4.2013 and canceled the mining lease of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Federation of Sands Stone Mining (supra) has been contested by the State by filing SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the matter is sub-judice and notices having been issued therein. Further, the petitioner has not impleaded the necessary party i.e. the successful candidate Mr. Balwat Singh in whose case also the mining lease has been canceled in light of the notification dated 3.4.2013 and he has not been made necessary party in the present matter and the petitioner being subsequent allottee, then Balwat Singh will have no better title and it will be a discrimination if on the same set of grounds, the petitioner will be held successful.
11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and scanning records of the writ petition, this court is of the view that the petitioner has not impleaded Mr. Balwat Singh as a necessary party in the present case who was declared as successful mining lease allottee prior to the petitioner. It is also admitted case that the lease in question has been canceled by said order in the case of Balwat Singh by virtue of notification dated 3.4.2013 and on the same ground, in the facts and circumstances SLP is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court filed by the State defending validity of Notification dated 03.04.2013.
12. The lease deed cannot be allotted to subsequent mining lease allottee as the same is going to cause discrimination and will be in violation of principles of natural justice, as contradictory stand on the part of respondents in the same set of grievance is not permissible.
(Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 09:41:04 AM)
(5 of 5) [CW-3865/2019]
13. The petitioner has chosen not to implead Mr. Balwat Singh as a necessary party while invoking powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is also erroneous and will cause prejudice to Mr. Balwat Singh's cancellation is on account of Notification dated 03.04.2013, ignoring the said statutory Notification validity of which is pending before Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP, will be arbitrary, irrational and illegal if the allotment is regularized in the case of petitioner. Further there is violation of Rule 72 of the Rules of 1986 on account of the minimum area required and overlapping of mine to the extent of approximately 8000 SQM in the matter of petitioner.
14. In the light of above observations, this court is of the view that the order impugned dated 5.9.2018 passed by the respondent No.2, being rightly passed, just and proper, does not call for interference.
15. As a result, the writ petition is dismissed. All pending applications stands disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J Raghu/ (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 09:41:04 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)