2015 Supreme(Raj) 1609

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Alok Sharma, J.
Jabir Hussain - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 2893 of 2008.
Decided On : 15-05-2015

The Civil Court alone has jurisdiction to determine the dispute regarding the legality and validity of the transfer of a quarry license.

Headnote:

MINING - Cancellation of quarry license - Transfer of quarry license - Minor - Natural justice - Over-reaching of judicial process - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - MMCR, 1986.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was granted a quarry license on 3.12.1988 after the transfer of the same from respondent No.4. The license was renewed from time to time till 30.9.2007. A further renewal application was pending with the Mining Department. Respondent No.4 filed a suit seeking cancellation of the transfer of the quarry license in favor of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was a minor at the time of the transfer. The trial court dismissed the application under Order 40, Rule 1 CPC. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent No.4 along with an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking protection of his possession of the quarry license area and obstruction free mining therein. The court allowed the application and granted temporary injunction. The Mining Engineer issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why his quarry license should not be cancelled. The petitioner filed a reply but the quarry license was cancelled on 21.4.2007. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Addl. Director Mines, Jaipur which was allowed and the order of cancellation was set aside. The Addl. Director, Mines directed the Mining Engineer to give possession of the quarry license to either of the party after taking into consideration "various orders passed by the Court below" and the order dated 3.3.2008 passed by the Mining Engineer, Makrana cancelling the transfer of the quarry license to the petitioner on 3.12.2008 albeit subject to the outcome of suit Nos. 5/2006 & 11/2006 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Makrana. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 3.3.2008.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the order dated 3.3.2008 cancelling the transfer of the quarry license to the petitioner on 3.12.1988 was in apparent breach of natural justice. Admittedly no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor was he heard. Yet he was made to suffer civil consequences of being denied mining operations. The order dated 3.3.2008 is also vitiated by a very evident attempt to over-reach the judicial process under suit Nos. 5/2006 and 11/2006 pending before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Makrana and interim orders dated 5.5.2006 and 20.1.2007 passed therein. The court further held that the Dy. Secretary, Mines erred in holding merely on the basis of entries in the Secondary School certificate and the scholar register that as on 3.12.1988 when the quarry license was transferred to the petitioner, he was 16 years 10 months and 22 days. Without anything more the petitioner could not be conclusively held to be minor on the date of transfer of quarry license to him. The court also held that the Civil Court alone therefore, in its considered opinion would has jurisdiction to determine the dispute as it arises in the present case.

Issues: 1. Whether the order dated 3.3.2008 cancelling the transfer of the quarry license to the petitioner on 3.12.1988 was in breach of natural justice? 2. Whether the order dated 3.3.2008 was vitiated by an attempt to over-reach the judicial process? 3. Whether the Dy. Secretary, Mines erred in holding merely on the basis of entries in the Secondary School certificate and the scholar register that as on 3.12.1988 when the quarry license was transferred to the petitioner, he was 16 years 10 months and 22 days? 4. Whether the Civil Court alone has jurisdiction to determine the dispute?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the order dated 3.3.2008 cancelling the transfer of the quarry license to the petitioner on 3.12.1988 was in apparent breach of natural justice as no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor was he heard. 2. The court held that the order dated 3.3.2008 was vitiated by a very evident attempt to over-reach the judicial process under suit Nos. 5/2006 and 11/2006 pending before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Makrana and interim orders dated 5.5.2006 and 20.1.2007 passed therein. 3. The court held that the Dy. Secretary, Mines erred in holding merely on the basis of entries in the Secondary School certificate and the scholar register that as on 3.12.1988 when the quarry license was transferred to the petitioner, he was 16 years 10 months and 22 days. Without anything more the petitioner could not be conclusively held to be minor on the date of transfer of quarry license to him. 4. The court held that the Civil Court alone therefore, in its considered opinion would has jurisdiction to determine the dispute as it arises in the present case.

Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the orders dated 3.3.2008, 21.2.2008 and 18.2.2008 and allowed the writ petition. The court also directed the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Makrana to dispose of the suits aforesaid within one year from receipt of a certified copy of this order.