1995 Supreme(Raj) 875
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
N.K.Jain, J.
Uttam Chand - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5018/ 94 and 4989 /94.
Decided On : 19-06-1995
The authorities concerned have not committed any error or illegality in passing the impugned orders whereby mining lease has been granted in favour of the non-petitioner Akshay Kumar.
Headnote:
MINING LEASE - ALLOTMENT - PREFERENCE - REVENUE RECORD - DELAY IN FILING APPEAL - CONDONATION - JOINT APPEAL - MAINTAINABILITY - DISCRETION OF MINING DEPARTMENT.
Fact of the Case:
Two writ petitions were filed challenging the orders of the authorities rejecting the petitioners' applications for grant of mining lease and granting the same to a third party. The petitioners claimed that they were entitled to the lease as they had filed their applications first and that the authorities had erred in rejecting their appeals and granting the lease to the third party.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had not filed complete applications as they had failed to submit the revenue record along with their applications. The court also found that the petitioners had not filed applications for condonation of delay in filing their appeals and that the authorities had rightly rejected their appeals on this ground. The court further found that the petitioners' joint appeal was not maintainable as the controversy involved in the matter was not the same and interdependent.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the mining lease as they had filed their applications first? 2. Whether the authorities had erred in rejecting the petitioners' appeals and granting the lease to the third party? 3. Whether the petitioners' joint appeal was maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to the mining lease as they had not filed complete applications and had failed to submit the revenue record along with their applications. 2. The court held that the authorities had not erred in rejecting the petitioners' appeals and granting the lease to the third party as the petitioners had not filed applications for condonation of delay in filing their appeals. 3. The court held that the petitioners' joint appeal was not maintainable as the controversy involved in the matter was not the same and interdependent.
Final Decision: Both writ petitions were dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. - By the writ petition No. 5018/94 filed on 19.10.94 by Uttam Chand the petitioner seeks directions to quash the orders dated 29.1.92 (Annex. 1) dated 7.3.94 (Annex. 3) and the order dated 27.9.94 (Annex. 5) and prays that the respondents may be directed to grant mining lease of plot No. 31 in Nai Parwati. Another writ petition bearing No. 4989/94 has been filed on 18.10.1994 by Vivek Saxena whereby the petitioner seeks directions to quash the order dated 7.3.94 (Annex. 3) passed by the Appellate Authority and the order dated 27.9.94 (Annex. 6) of the State Government. It has also been prayed that the report of two Patwaries under the Assistance of Mining Engineer proves to be false may also be quashed.
2. The dispute between the parties is arising out of the allotment of common plot No. 31 so as agreed by the learned counsel for the parties both the writ petitions have been heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.
3. It is alleged that for grant of mining lease in respect of departmentally delineated plot No. 31 situated in village Nai Parwati Tehsil Amet District Rajsamand for minor marbles, the petitioner-Uttam Chand applied first on 30.8.91 and respondent No. 4 Akshay Kumar applied on 23.11.1991. Thereafter Vivek Saxena also applied for grant of mining lease in the said plot alleging to be situated in Khasara No. 2803 on 4.5.1992. The application of Uttam Chand and Akshay Kumar were rejected vide order dated 29.1.1992 observing that they have failed to submit the document relating to land in compliance with the notice dated 30.8.1991. Thereafter, Akshay Kumar respondent No. 4 filed appeal No. 116/92 on 14.6.92 and petitioner Uttam Chand filed appeal No. 178/92 on 7.7.1992 before the Addl. Director. Vivek Saxena respondent No. 5 (petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4989/94) was impleaded as party in appeal No. 116/92 and filed his reply and on the application of Vivek Saxena he was granted conditional sanction on 20.6.1992 subject to the decision of appeal of Akshay Kumar. The Addl. Director (Admn.) Mining and Geology Department, Udaipur vide his common order dated 7.3.194 rejected the appeal of the petitioner-Uttam Chand and set aside the conditional Sanction granted to Vivek Saxena and allowed the application of Akshay Kumar respondent No. 4. Thereafter, petitioner-Vivek Saxena filed revision application No. 112/94 and so also petitioner-Uttam Chand filed appeal No. 128/94 before the Dy. Secretary which were decided by the common order dated 27.9.94. Being aggrieved with this order, Uttam Chand and Vivek Saxena filed the aforesaid two writ petitions.
4. Reply to writ petitions have been filed by Akshay Kumar non-petitioner No. 4 and the Mining Department. Rejoinder has also been filed.
5. Mr. Shishodia, learned counsel for the petitioner-Uttam Chand submits that the petitioner being the first applicant filed application on 30.8.91 is entitled to get the said mining lease on the delineated plot under Rule 7(1) of the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1986. He has submitted that the respondent No. 2 while condoning the delay has erred in dismissing both the appeals on merit on 7.3.1994 on the same ground. He has also submitted that the Dy. Secretary has erred in observing that the petitioner has not filed separate appeals and thus came to the wrong conclusion whereas both the appeals were filed against the common order. He has relied on Kusum Ansal v. Commissioner, I.T. (190 ITR 24) Union of India v. Income Tax Officer (164 ITR 600) , K.C. Khosla & Co. v. Dy. Commissioner (AIR 1966 SC 1216) and Hindustan Aluminium Cop. Ltd. v. State of Bihar (AIR 1992 SC 1521).
6. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Vivek Saxena has submitted that the disputed plot falls in Khasara No. 2803 which is owned by the private persons and according to the various Government circulars for obtaining mining lease in respect of land owned by private persons it is necessary to
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
