Honble SHETHNA, J.–Learned counsel Shri Thanvi for the petitioner Madhav son of late Shri Amba Das has placed on record the order dated 28.9.96 passed by the Addl. Director (Mines), Udaipur Zone, Udaipur, which is taken on record of the case. As per that order, the lease was granted in favour of Amba Das Ramchandra by order dated 3.10.70 with effect from 10.5.71 for a period of twenty years which is within period as per the interim order dated 5.9.94 passed by this court. It is further stated in the order that as Shri Amba Das Ramchandra expired on 22.5.94, an application was submitted by Smt. Prabhavati Devi widow of deceased Amba Das on behalf of her family members to get the mining lease transferred in her name with an affidavit wherein the consent was given by her family members, therefore, under R.62 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the Addl. Director (Mines), Udaipur Zone, Udaipur, granted permission to transfer the mining lease in the name of Smt. Prabhavati Devi.

(2). On the basis of the aforesaid order, learned counsel Shri Thanvi for the petitioner Madhav son of late Shri Amba Das submitted that the impugned order dated 1.7.94 (Annex.6) passed by the Joint Secretary (Mines) of Union of India, respondent No.1, be set aside and the State Govt., respondent No.2, be directed to grant renewal application of mining lease made by deceased Amba Das. Petitioner Madhav has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 31.3.92 (Annex.3) passed by the State Govt., respondent No.2, rejecting the renewal application made by Amba Das on the ground that it was submitted after the expiry of period of limitation and also challenged the order dated 1.7.94 (Annex.6) passed by the Union of India, respondent No.1, whereby the revision petition filed by late Amba Das was dismissed as having been abated on his death.

(3). This petition was placed first for admission before this Court on 5.9.94. While issuing notice making it returnable on 23.9.94, notice was also issued regarding stay and meanwhile, it was ordered that the petitioner (Madhav) be not dispossessed if not already dispossessed. It clearly appears from the order dated 28.9.96 passed by the Addl. Director (Mines), Udaipur, which is produced today by learned counsel Shri Thanvi, that without applying his mind to the interim order pa- ssed by this Court on 5.9.94, he has transferred the mining lease in the name of Smt. Prabhavati Devi widow of Amba Das, when that mining lease was not in existence at all because the mining lease, which was earlier granted in favour of late Amba Das was not renewed by the authority.

(4). In my opinion, the present petition filed by petitioner Madhav was not at all maintainable because the revision application filed by late Shri Amba Das was dismissed by the respondent No.1 on the ground that it stood abated on the death of late Amba Das. Instead of filing this petition straightway before this Court, the petitioner Madhav son of Amba Das ought to have made an application before the respondent No.1 for setting aside the abatement with a request to bring him as legal representative of the deceased Amba Das on record and obtain an appropriate order from the respondent No.1. It is strange that the petitioner Madhav claims to be legal heir, though his mother Smt. Prabhavati Devi widow of Amba Das was very much there and in fact, she made an application for getting the lease transferred in her name. which was earlier granted to her husband.

(5). Learned counsel Shri Thanvi for the petitioner challenged the order dt. 1.7.94 at Annex.6 passed by respondent No.1. on the ground that respondent No.1 the Union of India has totally misconstrued the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahemedabad vs. Ramanbhai (1). As stated earlier, the present petition filed at the instance of petitioner Madhav was not at all maintainable, therefore, there is no question of dealing with this submission. However on meits also

Click Here to Read the rest of this document