Allowed

Nathu Singh Rajput v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Nov 2023CW/1070/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court allowed the writ petition seeking quashing of an order dated 16/07/2014 and restoration of mining lease. The court quashed the impugned order and allowed the petitioner to proceed with mining subject to depositing the balance amount and penalty within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned order dated 16/07/2014, restored mining lease in favor of petitioner, and restrained respondents from auction until restoration ordered.

Nathu Singh Rajput Vs the State of Rajasthan — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:38027]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1070/2021

¶4

Nathu Singh Rajput S/o Shri Laxman Singh Ji Rajput, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Neair Village Boraj, Tehsil And District Rajsamand.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

The Director, Of Mines And Geology Department, Udaipur. 3. The Superintending Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Rajsamand.

¶9

The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department Amet, District Rajsamand Ii.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Arvind Vyas
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Digvijay Singh for
	Mr.MrigrajSingh

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶13

Order

¶14

06/11/2023

¶15

The present writ petition has been filed for the following

¶16

reliefs:-

¶17

I. “by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 16/07/2014 (Annex.3) may be quashed and set aside; and restored the mining lease in favour of the petitioner, and

¶18

II. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, till restoration of mining lease as aforesaid is ordered by this Hon’ble Court, the respondents may be restrained from putting the mining lease area in question on auction for re-allotment to any other person.”

[2023:RJ-JD:38027]

[CW-1070/2021]

(2 of 2)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court dated 06.11.2017 (Annexure-1) delivered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14717/2016 (M/s Sojat Lime Company Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

Thus, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.07.2014 (Annex.-3) is quashed and set aside.

¶25

The petitioner shall be allowed to proceed with the mining subject to his deposition of the balance amount along with the penalty etc. as calculated by the respondents authority in terms of the Rules prevailing on the subject. The said amount shall be determined within one month from today and the petitioner shall deposit the said amount within one month thereafter.

¶26

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶27

115-SunilS/-

Nathu Singh Rajput v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nathu Singh Rajput v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parkash Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Shri Ganesh Traders Vs Chief Commissioner, Sgst

M/S Ravi and Sons Vs State of Rajasthan

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajruddin @ Bhauda Vs State of Rajasthan