The Mining Department is required to proceed in the matter in pursuance of the notice dated 4th August, 2011 and take action in accordance with the provisions of law.

Mr. M.N. Bhandari, J.

1. With consent of the parties, writ petition has been heard finally.

2. The writ petition was filed to seek a direction on the Mining Engineer to proceed pursuant to notice dated 4th August, 2011 and seek rider agreement by inducting the petitioner as partner of the firm i.e. M/s. Balaji Marbles Mines.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

3. This case has chequered history, however, it is summarised in order of events. A mining lease was executed in favour of the partnership firm namely, M/s. Balaji Marbles Mines, Makrana, District Nagour. The petitioner was having partnership to the extent of 35%. A dispute about partnership came and decided by the Registrar (Firms) when petitioner was ousted from the partnership firm. The Registrar (Firms) passed order in favour of the petitioner on 2nd August, 2011. The direction was given for restoration of the partnership of the petitioner. The order of the Registrar (Firms) was challenged by the other party by maintaining a writ petition before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur. The writ petition was filed even to challenge the notice dated 4th August, 2011 passed by the Mining Engineer for execution of rider agreement. The order dated 2nd August, 2011 of Registrar (Firms) and the notice dated 4th August, 2011 were set aside. The petitioner preferred special appeal before the Division Bench where initially an interim order was passed and thereupon special appeal was allowed. Accordingly, order of the Registrar (Firms) dated 2nd August, 2011 and notice for execution of the rider agreement dated 4th August, 2011 were maintained. The partnership firm preferred Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court, however, order of the Division Bench was not interfered but SLP was disposed of vide order dated 19th February, 2016 with the following order:

"Delay condoned.

Special Leave Petition is dismissed. However, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the civil court for redressal of its grievance or for challenging the order passed by the Registrar of Firms. We clarify that the observations made by the High Court shall not influence the civil court and the civil court will decide the matter in accordance with law if and when any proceedings are initiated in a civil court."

4. The present writ petition was filed, in the meanwhile, when the Mining Engineer did not proceed pursuant to the notice dated 4th August, 2011 for execution of the rider agreement. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, rider agreement should be executed and if it is not executed then pursuant to Rule 18(21a) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short "the Rules of 1986"), the Mining Engineer should cancel the mining lease. Since the mining engineer failed to proceed in the matter thus writ petition was filed. It is moreso when notice dated 4th August, 2011 even prevents issuance of ravannas in absence of the rider agreement. An interim order was passed by this court on 21st September, 2016 stopping mining operation as otherwise no mining operation could have been carried out unless ravannas are issued. The partnership firm was excavating minerals despite notice dated 4th August, 2011. The ravannas could not have been issued by the Mining Engineer unless rider agreement is executed. In view of the above, a direction is sought to proceed in the matter pursuant to notice dated 4th August, 2011.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General Shri Anurag Sharma submits that due to various orders at different levels, the Mining Engineer could not proceed in the matter pursuant to notice dated 4th August, 2011. Initially, the order passed by the Registrar (Firms) and the notice were stayed by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur. The writ petition was finally allowed where the order of the Registrar (Firms) dated 2nd August, 2011 and notice dated 4th August, 2011 were set aside. The Division Bench, however, passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner but due to pendency of appeal, action co