Quashed

Raja Khanderao Deshmukh (Palshikar) v. State of Maharashtra,through Its Secretary, Department of Industries, Energy and Labour and 4 Other

Bombay HC17 Dec 2012WP/640/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Joint order dismissing two writ petitions challenging the quashing of a mining lease grant. The High Court held the revisional authority failed to consider specific grounds, relevant statutory provisions, and necessary guidelines without affording an opportunity of being heard, thus quashing the impugned order and remanding the matter.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; matter remanded to revisional authority to decide revision on merits within three months.

Raja Khanderao Deshmukh (Palshikar) Vs State of… — Mining and Natural Resources | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wps640&1831.12-orde r

¶2

1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETN. NO.640/2012

¶5

Raja Khanderao Deshmukh (Palshikar)

¶6

-vs-

¶7

State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

AND

¶9

WRIT PETN. NO.1831/2012

¶10

M/s. JLD Cement Ltd.

¶11

-vs-

¶12

State of Maharashtra and others

¶13

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office notes, Office Memoranda of

¶14

Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶15

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶16

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WP No.640/2012 Shri B.Mohata, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs.Rashi Deshpande, AGP for the respondent No.1. Shri S.K.Mishra, ASGI for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Shri Bhongade, counsel for the respondent No.4. Shri D.V.Chauhan, counsel for the respondent No.5.

¶17

W.P.No.1831/2012

¶18

Shri D.V.Chauhan, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs.Rashi Deshpande, AGP for the respondent No.1. Shri S.K.Mishra, ASGI for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Shri Bhongade, counsel for the respondent No.4. Shri B.Mohata, counsel for the respondent No.5.

¶19

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 17.12.2012.

¶20

Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are common, they are heard together and are decided by this common order.

¶21

It appears on hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the impugned order that the revisional authority under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 has neither considered the grounds raised by the respondent No.4 for challenging the grant of lease in favour of the petitioners in both the writ petitions nor

¶22

wps640&1831.12-orde r

¶23

2/2

¶24

has the revisional authority considered the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Act of 1957. Moreover, the revisional authority has relied on the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Mines dated 24/06/2009 for holding that the lease granted in favour of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.640/2012 was not in accordance with the same, without granting an opportunity of the petitioners to have their say on the guidelines. No notice was issued by the revisional authority to the petitioners before relying on the guidelines dated 24/06/2009, with the result that the petitioners were not in a position to point out that the grant of lease in favour of the petitioners was not prohibited by the guidelines so issued.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid position, it would be necessary to remand the matter to the revisional authority for considering the revision filed by the respondent No.4 on its merits in accordance with law.

¶26

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petitions are partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the revisional authority for deciding the revision filed by the respondent No.4 on its merits in accordance with law. The parties undertake to appear before the revisional authority on 07/01/2013 so that issuance of notice to the parties could be dispensed with. The revisional authority should decide the revision as early as possible and positively within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties.

¶27

Order accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

KHUNTE

Raja Khanderao Deshmukh (Palshikar) v. State of Maharashtra,through Its Secretary, Department of Industries, Energy and Labour and 4 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja Khanderao Deshmukh (Palshikar) v. State of Maharashtra,through Its Secretary, Department of Industries, Energy and Labour and 4 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Amravati Distt. Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Thr. Manager/President Amravati Vs Rameshwar Natthuji Garode and Oths

Ramesh Gopal Chaudhari Vs Arjun S/O Prabhakar Narkhede and Ors.

Smt. Chindhibai W/O Motiram Bimele Vs Duliram S/O Sakharam Birkhede and Anr.

Shri Janardhan S/O Balakram Kovache Vs the Additional Collector,Nagpur and Others

Rajesh S/O Nashiket Dongre Vs the Commissioner, State Information Commission and Ors.

M/S Jld Cement Ltd. Thr. Its Auth. Signatory Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.