Dismissed

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC2 Aug 2011CW/1351/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding the rejection of a mining lease application. The court held the applicant had other statutory remedies via appeal before the Additional Director (Mines) and dismissed the writ petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Additional Director (Mines) against the rejected order.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Company and Corporate | Rajasthan HC (2011)

¶1

-1-

¶2

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1351/2006

¶3

Sanjeev Kumar. VS State of Raj. & Ors.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶5

ORDER

¶6

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1351/2006. Sanjeev Kumar. VERSUS

¶7

The State of Rajasthan & Others.

¶8

02.08.2011.

¶9

Hon'ble Mr.Justice Dalip Singh

¶10

Mr.Anoop Dhand, for the petitioner. Mr.Zakir Hussain, Additional Government Counsel.

¶11

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition and reply.

¶13

The matter in dispute pertains to the application submitted by the petitioner for the grant of mining lease. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.01.2006 by which the order dated 27.10.2005 was revoked and the earlier position restored. Thereafter, as per the reply filed by the petitioner, the application submitted by the petitioner has been decided on merits and rejected vide order dated 13.02.2006 on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with and rectified the deficiencies as pointed out under the notice dated 03.12.2005 and further that the area is not in accordance with the minimum standards laid down under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 more particularly Rule 11 thereof.

¶14

Admittedly, in view of the order dated 13.02.2006 there is no application pending as of today and against the said order passed by the Mining Engineer, the petitioner has right of filing an appeal before the Additional Director (Mines).

¶15

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1351/2006 Sanjeev Kumar. VS State of Raj. & Ors.

¶16

-2-

¶17

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Additional Director (Mines) by means of an appeal against the order dated 13.02.2006. The petitioner may claim condonation of delay on account of pendency of the proceedings before this court.

¶18

Subject to the above, the writ petition stands disposed

¶19

of.

¶20

(DALIP SINGH),J.

¶21

Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sushila Jain Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Chandra Gopal and Ors. Vs B O R Ajmer and Ors.

Janak Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Girish Kumar Vs the Regional Transport Authori

Gurmeet Kaur and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bhagirath Gurjar Vs State of Raj and Ors.