Remanded

Mohammad Sayed v. State of Rajasthan through Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology

Rajasthan HC1 Jun 2019CW/13364/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellate court quashed orders dated March 2004, February 2016, and January 2018 regarding mining leases in a connected matter. The court remitted the matter to the competent authority for fresh adjudication within two months based on precedents showing lease restoration despite delays in public interest cases.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; matter remitted to competent authority for fresh adjudication within two months.

Mohammad Sayed Vs State of Rajasthan through… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13364/2018

¶3

Mohammad Sayed S/o Sh. Khan, R/o Chandraghata, near to Guleguljar Masjid, Kota ----Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Rajasthan through Joint Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Secretariat, jaipur.

¶6

Additional Director Mines, Kota.

¶7

Mining Engineer, Bundi.

¶8

---Respondents

¶9

Connected with

¶10

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13369/2018

¶11

Smt. Shamshunisha W/o Lt. Sh. Abdul Hamid R/o Guleguljar Masjid ke pass, Kota.

¶12

Versus

¶13

State of Rajasthan through Joint Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Secretariat, jaipur.

¶14

Additional Director Mines, Kota.

¶15

Mining Engineer, Bundi.

¶16

---- Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Alankrita Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Zakawat Ali, Additional G.C.

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶19

Order

¶20

01/06/2019

¶21

In both these matters, admittedly, identical controversy is involved; hence, matters have been taken for adjudication by this common order, consented by counsel for the parties.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to various orders placed on record as Annexure-5 to 8, contended that in similar factual matrix, in the interest of public exchequer, the dead

¶23

(2 of 2)

¶24

[CW-13364/2018]

¶25

rent along with penalty wherever deposited, the mining leases have been restored. Further, in those cases too, the claims were staked after a delay beyond the limitation prescribed under the statutory rules.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents could not dislodge the statement made and documentary evidence placed on record as Annex.5 to 8.

¶27

In view of the above, impugned orders dated 29^th March, 2004, 16^th February, 2016 and 30^th January, 2018 are hereby quashed.

¶28

Matters are remitted back to the Competent Authority for adjudication afresh in the backdrop of the view already adopted in identical factual matrix, as reflected from Annex.5 to 8. Respondents would do the needful, as expeditiously as possible; preferably, within a period of two moths from the date a certified copy of this order is presented.

¶29

With the observations and directions as indicated above, the writ applications stand disposed off.

¶30

A copy of this order be placed in the connected file.

¶31

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶32

BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /77/61-62

Mohammad Sayed v. State of Rajasthan through Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Sayed v. State of Rajasthan through Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology

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

M/S Devendra Construction Co. Vs State of Rajasthan

Shahbuddin Khan Vs Shri Arif Mohammed Madani and Anr.

Dilip Singh S/O Shri Inder Singh Vs Shankar S/O Gokul

M/S Marda Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs Idbi Bank Limited

Shyam Vihar Vikas Samiti Vs State and Ors.

Shyam Vihar Vikas Samiti Vs State of Raj and Ors.