Dismissed

Bhupendra Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Jul 2018CW/9373/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged Rule 89 of 2017 Rules regarding his cancelled mining lease application, which was actually cancelled under a 2013 Notification. Court dismissed petition as challenge to Rule 89 not tenable while stay on 2013 Judgment by Apex Court operates.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner allowed to file fresh writ petition or seek revival if SLP against the 2013 Notification Judgment is dismissed by Apex Court.

Bhupendra Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Company and Corporate | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writs No. 9373/2018

¶3

Bhupendra Singh, Son of Shri Nanhe Singh, aged about 35 years, resident of Plot No. 368, Vivek Vihar, district Jaipur through Power of Attorney Holder Pankaj Sharma, Son of Shri Rameshwar Lal Sharma, aged about 43 years, resident of 1-A137, Shiv Shakti Colony, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

Director, Mines & Geology, Directorate of Mines & Geology, Court Circle, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

Mining Engineer, Department of Mines & Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwani Chobisa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma for Mr. NM Lodha, Advocate General

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI

¶12

Judgment

¶13

13/07/2018

¶14

Learned Advocate General Mr. NM Lodha submits that the petitioner has challenged Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (for short “the Rules of 2017”) though his application was cancelled earlier pursuant to the Notification dated 03.04.2013. It was not challenged by the petitioner while other similarly placed persons filed writ petitions to challenge the Notification dated 03.04.2013 and the order of cancellation of pending applications. The writ petitions of others were allowed by Principal Seat at Jodhpur.

¶15

The State preferred an appeal before the Apex Court. The operation of the judgment of this court has been stayed by the Apex

¶16

[CW-9373/2018]

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

Court. The application of the petitioner for mining lease was cancelled pursuant to the Notification dated 03.04.2013. It was not pursuant to the Rule 89 of the Rules of 2017. The petitioner cannot be kept at par with others, who had challenged the earlier order of cancellation by maintaining a writ petition, which was then allowed. The prayer is to dismiss the writ petition.

¶19

We find that the petitioner made an application for allotment of mining lease on declaration of area to be vacant by the Mining Engineer. The application was cancelled by passing an order pursuant to the Notification dated 03.04.2013. The petitioner did not challenge the Notification and the order cancelling the application, though others challenged it. The Notification dated 03.04.2013 was quashed by the court, however, operation of the order passed by the Principal Seat, Jodhpur has been stayed by the Apex Court.

¶20

The petitioner has challenged Rule 89 of the Rules of 2017, whereas, his application was cancelled by passing an order pursuant to the earlier Notification dated 03.04.2013. Since an interim order has been passed by the Apex Court against the judgment of this court for quashing Notification dated 03.04.2013, thus it operates presently.

¶21

We find challenge to the Rule 89 of the Rules of 2017 in the hands of the petitioner to be not tenable at this stage. It can be only if the order passed by the Division Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur to quash the Notification dated 03.04.2013 is maintained.

¶22

Accordingly, challenge to Rule 89 of the Rules of 2017 in the hands of the petitioner cannot be accepted at this stage. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner can, however, file a fresh writ petition or seek revival of this petition if the SLP pending before the Apex Court in reference to the Notification dated 03.04.2013 is dismissed. It is in view of the fact that the petitioner was otherwise

¶23

[CW-9373/2018]

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

required to challenge the order of cancellation of the application in the year 2013.

¶26

(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J

¶27

(M.N.BHANDARI),J

¶28

Sunita/15

Bhupendra Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupendra Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

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

Umesh Kumar and Anr. Vs Raj Roadways Seva Nivarat Karamchari

Tulsiram Meena Vs Raj Legislative Assembly Ors.

Nand Kishore Sharma and Ors. Vs State Finance Departmentors

Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs High Court of Judicature and Ors.

Akhil Bhartiya Valmiki Samaj Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Smt Meena Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.