The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the time elapsed since the issuance of licenses, the nature of the area, and the examination of previous submissions.

JUDGMENT

1. In the 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.

2. This misc. application under Section 151 CPC has been preferred claiming the following relief:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court mercifully be pleased to call for original records of the respondents and status report of mining leases in Aravali Hills Range areas and to re-call the impugned order dated 07-08-2020 and to decide the SAW No. 1442/2019 on merits afresh and to grant the requisite reliefs in terms of SAW No. 1442/2019 to meet the ends of justice."

3. The bone of contention in the present case is non-grant of mining lease to the applicant-appellant on account of her non-execution of agreement within specified time and not being able to get her land demarcated, since the area fell within the specified Aravali Hills. The prospective licenses had been issued in favour of the applicant-appellant on 15.01.1998 and 27.01.1998, but the same were revoked vide orders dated 08.03.2000 and 10.06.1999, respectively.

4. The applicant/appellant aggrieved by the same, filed two revision petitions before the Mines Tribunal in 2001, and subsequently preferred writ petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court challenging order passed by the respondents and the litigation therein continued even after the Mines Tribunal disposed off the revision petitions. In 2009, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court set aside the orders passed by the Mines Tribunal with a direction to decide the revision petitions afresh. Upon which, the Mines Tribunal in 2010 noticed that the signatures in the demarcation report and field book were forged and allowed the revision petition, setting aside the State's order, dated 08.03.2000. Subsequently, the State Government sent the said documents for FSL investigation and the same was confirmed. In accordance with the direction of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the applicant-appellant submitted an application before the respondents seeking certain reliefs, and that upon non-addressal of the application by the respondents, the applicant/appellant preferred a contempt application before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, wherein a direction to decide the application so made, was issued to the respondents and liberty was granted to the applicant/appellant to file afresh, if the need so arose. Whereupon the respondents decided the application so made, but did not find in favour of the applicant/appellant. Thereafter, the applicant/appellant approached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court whereupon an order was passed directing the applicant/appellant to file a civil suit. And upon an objection by the respondents regarding jurisdiction, leave was granted to the applicant/appellant to approach the competent authority in a competent jurisdiction. And that, the applicant/appellant thereafter approached this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench by filing SBCWP No. 11843/2018, which was decided on 24.07.2018, while giving liberty to the applicant to approach the Principal Seat of this Hon'ble Court at Jodhpur, where the jurisdiction lies.

5. Mr. G.L. Jain (Power of Attorney of applicant) in person submits that the respondents have played fraud before the Hon'ble Court and had harassed and humiliated the petitioner, while also deliberately breached their statutory duty.

5.1. He further submits that the respondents/officials have hatched conspiracy, and have submitted fabricated/forged documents for the purpose of abusing the process of law.

5.2. He also submits that the FSL report clearly reveals the forged signatures and false affidavits, to frustrate the legitimate rights and claims of the applicant.

5.3. He further submits that the non-execution of the license is entirely due to malafide and illegal acts of the respondents. He also submits that the applicant has been denied natural justice over t