Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Gotan Limestone Khanij Udyog Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Mines Department & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12253 of 2019 Connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 404 of 2013
Decided On : 24-02-2022
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Adv. assisted by Ms. Alankrita Sharma Mr. Anjay Kothari Mr. Mukesh Gurjar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sandeep Shah, Sr.Adv. & AAG assisted by Ms. Akshiti Singhvi. Mr. Ramit Mehta Mr. Saurabh Maheshwari Ms. Shweta Chauhan, Advocates.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226(3) - Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2017 - Rule 27 - Partnership Firm - Cancellation of mining lease - Vacation of interim order - Transfer of mineral concession - Whether order passed by Joint Secretary, Department of Mines, State of Rajasthan suffers from non application of mind and unsound reasoning - A mining lease was granted by State of Rajasthan (through the Joint Secretary, Department of Mines) to company which was a partnership Firm at relevant time, and said lease was renewed, as per law - Held, Mining lease in question was held to be cancelled by concerned Department of the State, directed that status quo, as it exists on date of passing of verdict, with regard to mining lease in question be maintained - There lies a statutory distinguishing feature between Rule 27 sub rule (1), sub rule (7) and sub rule (8), as is clear from a bare reading of provisions of law under said sub rules - Under sub rule (1), the lessee or licensee shall seek consent of competent authority in writing before engaging in actions mentioned therein, which does not apply to a case of transfer as enumerated under Rule 27 sub rule (7) - Court does not find a case to be made out warranting interference in ex-parte interim order at this stage – Application dismissed.
.
JUDGMENT :
1. On 16.02.2022, the matters came up for consideration before this Court on the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India preferred in the above-numbered CWP No.12253/2019 for vacation of the interim order dated 21.08.2019 passed in the said petition.
2. In continuation on 17.02.2022, the parties were heard at length and the order on the aforementioned application was reserved, with the following order being passed:
"In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.
Submission of all parties on the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India are complete.
Order reserved on application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India.
List the matters on 24.02.2022 on the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC."
Thus, the present order decides only the application preferred under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, as aforementioned.
3. The prayer made in the application under consideration reads as follows:
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this misc. application filed by the applicants/respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of interim order dated 21.08.2019 may kindly be allowed and the interim order may kindly be vacated."
4. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that a mining lease bearing Mining Lease No.45/1993 was granted by the State of Rajasthan (through the Joint Secretary, Department of Mines) to M/s. Gotan Limestone Khanij Udyog Pvt. Ltd., which was a partnership Firm at the relevant time, and the said lease was renewed, as per the law. The said partnership Firm, in March 2012, was incorporated as a private limited company.
5. The order dated 25.04.2012 by which the transfer of the said mining lease in question from the partnership Firm to the petitioner-Company, was approved by the State of Rajasthan (through the Director, Mines).
6. Thereafter, in July, 2012, the 100% equity shareholding of the petitioner-Company was transferred by its promoter-Directors in favour of M/s UltraTech Cement Ltd. and the petitioner- Company thus became a subsidiary Company of M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd.; thereby, the mining lease in question was also acquired by M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd.
7. On 16.12.2014, the State/respondent passed an order by which the aforementioned order dated 25.04.2012, approving the transfer of the mining lease in question in favour of the petitioner- Company, was declared to be null and void.
8. The said cancellation of the mining lease was challenged by the petitioner-Company before this Hon'ble Court by filing SBCWP No.9669/2014, which was allowed by the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.03.2015, with a direction to the State respondents to hand over back the leased area of mining.
Thereafter, on an appeal (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writs) No. 328/2015) being preferred by the State respondents against the said order, the conclusion drawn by the Hon'ble Single Bench was affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court.
9. The State/respondents thereafter filed a Special Leave Petition, being SLP No. 23311/2015 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein vide order dated 20.01.2016, it was observed as follows:
36. Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have gone by only one aspect of law, i.e. the general principle that sale of shares by itself is not sale of assets but this principle is subject to the doctrine of piercing of corporate veil wherever necessary to give effect to the policy of law. In the present case, this principle clearly applies as transfer of shares to cover up the real transaction which is sale of mining lease for consideration without the previous consent of competent authority, as statutorily required. The statutory requirement is sought to be overcome with the plea that it was a transaction merely of t
