Allowed

Jodhpur Deve. Authority Jda, Jod. v. Murlidhar Tak and Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 Jul 2022SAW/1261/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Split bench allowed intra-court appeals against a High Court order dated 06.08.2009. The Court quashed an order directing the issuance of quarry licenses and Nos. Objection Certificates as it granted relief beyond the petitioners' prayers and became unsustainable under the Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2017.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 06.08.2009 setting aside and quashing the directions for granting quarry licenses. No order as to costs.

Jodhpur Deve. Authority Jda, Jod. Vs Murlidhar… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

(1 of 7)

¶2

[SAW-1247/2011]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶4

JODHPUR

¶5

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1247/2011

¶6

State of Rajasthan through Secretary (Mines), Mines Department, Government of Rajsthan, Jaipur.

¶7

The Secretary, Urban development & Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Collector, Jodhpur.

¶9

The Director (Mines) Mines & Geology Department, Udaipur.

¶10

The Superintending Mining Engineer, Mines & Geology Department, Jodhpur.

¶11

The Mining Engineer Mines & Geology Department, Jodhpur.

¶12

----Appellants

¶13

Versus

¶14

Murlidhar Tak son of Shri Girdhari Lal Tak resident of Sardarpura Ist “B” Road, Jodhpur.

¶15

Smt. Padma wife of Shri Rajesh Resident of Jatabas, Opposite Hanuman temple, Jodhpur.

¶16

Smt. Sharda wife of Shri Murlidhar Tak Resident of Sardarpura Ist B Road, Jodhpur.

¶17

Smt. Jayanti Gehlot wife of Shri Arvind Gehlot resident of near Seva Sadan School, Kaga, Jodhpur.

¶18

Chain Singh son of Shri Ganga Ram Sankhla Resident of Sukhram Nagar, Rajbagh Scheme, Soorsagar, Jodhpur.

¶19

Smt. Avani Tak wife of Shri Radhakishan Tak Resident of III DS, J.N.V. colony, Bikaner.

¶20

Prakash Chandra Agarwal son of Shri Hansraj Agarwal, resident of 39, Pratap Nagar colony, Near Glass factory, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶21

Achal Singh son of Shri Heer Singh Gohil Residnet of 16-A, Krishna Nagar, Nirwan Extension Scheme, Jaipur.

¶22

Amit Kumar son of Shri Murari Lal Resident of Sardarpura Ist B Road, Jodhpur.

¶23

Mahendra Panwar son of Shri Narayan Panwar Resident of Pali Bazar, Mahamandir, Jodhpur.

¶24

Jethu Singh son of Shri Bhanwar Lal Rajpurohit resident of Meghlasia, Jodhpur.

¶25

(2 of 7)

¶26

[SAW-1247/2011]

¶27

Ajeet Kumar son of Shri Hari Kumar Koli Resident of Quarter No.41, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur.

¶28

PROFORMA RESPONDENT: Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur.

¶29

----Respondent

¶30

Connected With

¶31

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1261/2011

¶32

Jodhpur Development Authority (JDA), Jodhpur through its Secretary.

¶33

----Appellant

¶34

Versus

¶35

Murlidhar Tak son of Shri Girdhari Lal Tak resident of Sardarpura Ist “B” Road, Jodhpur.

¶36

Smt. Padma wife of Shri Rajesh Resident of Jatabas, Opposite Hanuman temple, Jodhpur.

¶37

Smt. Sharda wife of Shri Murlidhar Tak Resident of Sardarpura Ist B Road, Jodhpur.

¶38

Smt. Jayanti Gehlot wife of Shri Arvind Gehlot resident of near Seva Sadan School, Kaga, Jodhpur.

¶39

Chain Singh son of Shri Ganga Ram Sankhla Resident of Sukhram Nagar, Rajbagh Scheme, Soorsagar, Jodhpur.

¶40

Smt. Avani Tak wife of Shri Radhakishan Tak Resident of III DS, J.N.V. colony, Bikaner.

¶41

Prakash Chandra Agarwal son of Shri Hansraj Agarwal, resident of 39, Pratap Nagar colony, Near Glass factory, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶42

Achal Singh son of Shri Heer Singh Gohil Residnet of 16-A, Krishna Nagar, Nirwan Extension Scheme, Jaipur.

¶43

Amit Kumar son of Shri Murari Lal Resident of Sardarpura Ist B Road, Jodhpur.

¶44

Mahendra Panwar son of Shri Narayan Panwar Resident of Pali Bazar, Mahamandir, Jodhpur.

¶45

Jethu Singh son of Shri Bhanwar Lal Rajpurohit resident of Meghlasia, Jodhpur.

¶46

Ajeet Kumar son of Shri Hari Kumar Koli Resident of Quarter No.41, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur.

¶47

State of Rajasthan through Secretary (Mines), Mines Department, Government of Rajsthan, Jaipur.

¶48

(3 of 7)

¶49

[SAW-1247/2011]

¶50

The Secretary, Urban development & Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶51

The Collector, Jodhpur.

¶52

The Director (Mines) Mines & Geology Department, Udaipur.

¶53

The Superintending Mining Engineer, Mines & Geology Department, Jodhpur.

¶54

The Mining Engineer Mines & Geology Department, Jodhpur.

¶55

----Respondent

¶56

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, Sr. Advocate-cumAAG assisted by Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Kotwani

¶57

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶58

Order

¶59

06/07/2022

¶60

These two appeals are directed against the order dated 06.08.2009 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1619/2008 whereby, the writ petition preferred by the respondents herein, was accepted with the following directions:-

¶61

“In view of the aforesaid discussion, the respondent No.4 Jodhpur Development Authority (JDA) is directed to receive the amount from the petitioners for the land measuring 4 hectares each at the existing DLC rate and issue No Objection Certificate in their favour with the appropriate condition that after the mineral Sandstone is exhausted from the area, the land shall vest back to the respondent No.4 JDA, and after such No Objection Certificate is issued by respondent No.4, JDA, the respondent Mining Engineer, Jodhpur shall grant quarry licences in favour of the

¶62

(4 of 7)

¶63

[SAW-1247/2011]

¶64

petitioners as has been agreed by them in para No.4 of their reply. The petitioners shall appear before the respondent No.4 JDA and deposit the amount as calculated by respondent No.4 JDA at the existing DLC rate and on such deposit, the respondent No.4 JDA may issue No Objection Certificate and thereafter the petitioners may approach the respondent Mining Engineer, Jodhpur for grant of quarry licences in their favour.”

¶65

The State of Rajasthan (Mining) and Jodhpur Development Authority, who were respondents in the above writ petitions, have preferred these two intra court appeals for assailing the above order.

¶66

Shri Sandeep Shah, learned Senior Advocate-cum-AAG assisted by Shri Abhimanyu Singh, representing the Mining Department and Shri Sunil Beniwal, learned AAG representing the JDA, vehemently and fervently urged that the directions given by the learned Single Bench are much beyond the scope of relief sought for in the writ petition preferred by the respondents which are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:

¶67

“(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to take final decision for allotment of quarry licences on Khasra No.5, Badli, Tehsil and District Jodhpur, regarding which proposals/ recommendations have already been made, and the same are pending before them for taking final decision in the matter;

¶68

(ii) the U.I.T., Jodhpur, may be directed to consider the matter for issuance of NOCs in favour of the petitioners on appropriate compensation being paid to the U.I.T., Jodhpur, in lieu thereof, so that the allotments of quarries may be made in favour of the petitioners.

¶69

(iii) alternatively, the respondents, in particular the U.I.T., Jodhpur may be directed to decide the representation filed by the petitioners in respect of issuance of NOCs, in favour of the petitioners in Khasra No.5, Badli, Tehsil and District Jodhpur, by a speaking order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a given time, so that regular allotments of quarries can be made in favour of the petitioners at the earliest and the illegal mining, which is going on in the area may be stopped.”

¶70

(5 of 7)

¶71

[SAW-1247/2011]

¶72

and urged that the petitioners did not even make any pertinent prayer to direct the respondents to allot mining license to them but the learned Single Bench, exceeded the jurisdiction and granted relief to the petitioner beyond what was prayed for.

¶73

Shri Shah, urged that the order passed by the learned Single Bench (which has been stayed in this appeal), apart from being totally without jurisdiction, is no longer executable with the promulgation of the Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2017’) as per which, allotment of quarry licences has to be done only by resorting to the auction proceedings.

¶74

Shri Beniwal, learned AAG, representing the JDA, further urged that the area in question is covered under the Master Plan of Jodhpur Municipal area and thus, the same could not have been allotted for mining purposes. On these submissions, Shri Shah and Shri Beniwal, vehemently and fervently urged that the impugned order being grossly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified, deserves to be quashed.

¶75

Per contra, Shri C.S. Kotwani, Advocate representing the respondents writ petitioners, vehemently and fervently urged that the learned Single Bench committed no error whatsoever while directing the respondents to receive the amounts of the land in question admeasuring four hectares each from the petitioners and in directing the respondent Mining Department to issue quarry licences to the petitioners.

¶76

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned order and the material available on record.

¶77

(6 of 7)

¶78

[SAW-1247/2011]

¶79

It may be stated here that as per the prayer clauses of the writ petition (reproduced supra ), the relief sought for by the petitioners was limited to the extent of directing the respondents to take final decision for allotment of quarry licenses on Khasra No.5 Badli; to direct the UIT Jodhpur to consider the matter for issuance of NOCs on appropriate compensation being paid and in the alternate, to direct the erstwhile UIT (now JDA), to decide the representation filed by the petitioners in respect of the issuance of the NOCs.

¶80

As per the reply to the writ petition filed by the UIT, a pertinent assertion was made that the application for grant of quarry license filed by the petitioners had been rejected by the Mining Engineer and the petitioners had filed appeals which were pending before the competent authority. This important aspect of the matter was totally ignored by the learned Single Bench while accepting the writ petition.

¶81

Ex-facie , we are of the view that by way of the impugned order dated 06.08.2009, the learned Single Bench granted relief to the writ petitioners beyond what was prayed for. It was also pleaded in the reply of the JDA that the matter for grant of NOC for mining activities was pending consideration of the State Government and without sanction of the State, the UIT could not have been directed to grant NOC. This important issue was also not adverted to by the learned Single Bench while accepting the writ petition.

¶82

Without prejudice to the above, the fact remains that much water has flown after the impugned order was passed. The process for grant of mining lease or quarry license is now governed by the Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2017 as per

¶83

(7 of 7)

¶84

[SAW-1247/2011]

¶85

which, the mining leases and the quarry licences can only be granted through open e-auction. Thus, the directions given by the learned Single Bench to the erstwhile UIT to grant NOC to the petitioners for mining activities and to the Mining Department to grant them the quary licences, is unsustainable in view of the law prevailing as on date. Hence, the same is invalid on the face of the record.

¶86

Consequently, the impugned order dated 06.08.2009 is hereby set aside.

¶87

The appeals are allowed.

¶88

No order as to costs.

¶89

A copy of this order be placed in each file.

¶90

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶91

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶92

1-/Tikam/devesh/-

Jodhpur Deve. Authority Jda, Jod. v. Murlidhar Tak and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jodhpur Deve. Authority Jda, Jod. v. Murlidhar Tak and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Harka Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Dr. Pratibha Sanadhya

Meera Kunwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Sethia Handicrafts Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Sethia Handicrafts Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan