Disposed

M/S. Larsen and Toubro Limited, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Mar 2019CW/3521/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge writ petition challenged a demand notice for illegal mining activities issued without the petitioner's participation in the inspection. The court observed inaction by the appellate authority in deciding a pending appeal and directed the authority to decide the appeal within two months after hearing. No coercive steps were allowed until the appeal is decided.

What did the court decide?

Appellate authority directed to decide the pending appeal within two months after hearing; no coercive steps allowed till decision.

M/S. Larsen and Toubro Limited, Vs State of Rajasthan — Company and Corporate | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 3521/2019

¶3

M/s. Larsen And Toubro Limited, Having Its Registered Office At L And T House, Narottam Morarji Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai4000001 And Project Office At Larsen And Toubro Limited Wdfc, Civil Track Package No. 1 And 2, 4Th Floor, Sdc Monarch D-236, Amrapali Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur- 302021, Rajasthan Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Sanjeev Gupta Son Of Shri R P Gupta, Age About 56 Years, Resident Of Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Addl. Chief Secretary, Mines Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

Addl. Director, Mines And Geology Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶8

Superintendent Mining Engineer, Jodhpur.

¶9

Mining Engineer, Sojat City, District Pali.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Alankrita Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) :

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶13

Judgment / Order

¶14

12/03/2019

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without participation of the petitioner inspection was conducted and the mining lease at the adjacent place has been held to be done by the petitioner and a demand has been raised for the illegal mining activities on the part of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has filed an appeal against the said order before the Appellate Authority but no decision has come

¶16

(2 of 3) [CW-3521/2019]

¶17

forward. Learned counsel has relied on the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench on 07/01/2016 in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State & ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.44/2016) whereby this Court, while granting interim protection, directed the authorities for deciding the appeal. Counsel further submits that while the appeal is pending, a recovery order has been passed on 29/01/2019. She also relies on the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mewar Marbles Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan : 2002 WLC, Raj. (UC) page 213 to submit that the notice of demand for penalty without participation of the petitioner in the inspection would be unjustified.

¶18

Having heard learned counsel and having examined the judgments placed before this Court (supra), this Court is of the view that the appellate authority under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 is bound to decide the appeal preferred with stipulated period. The inaction on the part of the appellate authority results in further litigation coming up before this Court wherein this Court is passing orders for deciding the appeals within stipulated period. Such unnecessary litigation on account of inaction of the authorities is not called for and the State Government ought to take steps laying down a time frame for deciding the appeals.

¶19

Having said so, in the present case, finding that the appeal has been pending since long, it is directed that the appellate authority shall decide it within a period of two months after giving hearing to the petitioner and the petitioner would be free to assail the order if the petitioner is still aggrieved thereto.

¶20

(3 of 3) [CW-3521/2019]

¶21

In the meanwhile, till the appeal is decided, no coercive steps shall be taken in terms of the notice dated 29/01/2019.

¶22

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶23

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶24

Ravi Kh./108

M/S. Larsen and Toubro Limited, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Larsen and Toubro Limited, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United Spirits Limited, Vs State and Ors.

M/S. Alwar Malt and Agro Food Manafactures Company Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner Vs the Permanent Lok Adalat

M/S. Synco Textilles Private Limited Vs State and Anr.

Suman Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagatjit Industries Limited Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.