The State cannot take advantage of its own wrong, and a wrongdoer should not be permitted to make a profit out of their own wrong.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAY BISHNOI, J.

1. This intra court special appeal writ has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-State being aggrieved with the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2414/2016 (Shree Cement Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others) whereby the learned Single Judge while placing reliance on the judgment dated 23.08.2017 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court at Bench Jaipur in M/s. Wonder Cement Limited vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 126/2017) allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1-Company and quashed the orders dated 17.10.2015 and 27.10.2015 of cancelling the Letter of Intent (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the LOI’) issued in favour of the respondent No. 1-Company.

2. Learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 18.09.2017 has directed that the appellant-State shall proceed to consider the case of the respondent No. 1-Company for grant of mining lease in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of the order while observing that it shall not raise any objection with respect to the limitation in reference to the Section 10A(2)(C) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1957’).

3. Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the applications invited by the appellant-State vide Rajasthan Gazette Notification dated 14.10.2010 notifying the areas for grant of mining lease for mining the mineral Limestone in various Blocks of District Jaisalmer, the respondent No. 1-Company applied for grant of mining lease for mining the mineral Limestone (Cement Grade) in Block-Parewar (SN-V) District Jaisalmer. The appellant-State on 31.12.2014, after deciding the priority on merits in terms of Section 11(4) read with Section 11(3) of the Act of 1957, issued LOI in favour of the respondent No. 1-Company for mining the mineral Limestone (Cement Grade) over an area of 9.12 sq. kms. of Block-Parewar (SN-V) Tehsil and District Jaisalmer subject to fulfillment of 5 conditions of the LOI.

4. On 12.01.2015 vide Gazette of India, the Central Government promulgated an ordinance to amend the Act of 1957 in the name of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Ordinance, 2015 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Ordinance of 2015’). In the Ordinance of 2015, it is provided that the State Government can grant mining lease in favour of the LOI holders subject to the condition that LOI is issued prior to issuance of the Ordinance of 2015 and the conditions of LOI are fulfilled within a period of two years from the date of commencement of the said Ordinance of 2015. However, the appellant-State vide orders dated 17.10.2015 and 27.10.2015 cancelled all the LOIs on the ground that several irregularities have been committed while issuing the same.

5. It is to be noticed that on 31.12.2014, several LOIs were issued by the appellant-State in favour of several companies including the respondent No. 1-Company, however, later on, all the said LOIs were cancelled by it vide orders dated 17.10.2015 and 27.10.2015. Subsequently, some of the companies, in whose favour the LOIs were issued, filed revision petitions before the Central Government and some of the companies directly challenged the action of the appellant-State of cancelling the LOIs by way of filing writ petitions before this Court.

6. The action of the appellant-State of cancelling the LOIs was set aside in some of the cases by the Central Government and in some of the cases by this Court mainly on the ground that before cancellation of those LOIs, opportunity of hearing was not granted to the LOI holders.

7. In the present case, the respondent No. 1-Company instead of filing revision petition before the Central Government directly filed a writ petition bearing SBCWP No. 2414/2016 before this Court and the learned Single Judge while issuing notices in that writ petition on