Disposed

M/S Shree Shiv Jyoti Enterprises Pvt. Limited v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Apr 2023CW/4199/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Raj High Court disposed of a writ petition concerning exemptable deposits under the Mines department's Amnesty Scheme. Relying on a co-ordinate bench decision, the court directed the State to decide on refunds of excess amounts paid, allowing the petitioner to approach the court again if necessary.

What did the court decide?

Directed the State of Rajasthan to take a considered decision on the refund of excess amounts paid beyond the Amnesty Scheme and direct the petitioner to file a detailed representation within 15 days.

M/S Shree Shiv Jyoti Enterprises Pvt. Limited Vs State of… — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/011503]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4199/2020

¶4

M/s Shree Shiv Jyoti Enterprises Pvt. Limited, 10-11, Chand Vihar Nagari, Khatipura, Jaipur Through Its Authorized Signatory, Sharvan Singh S/o Shree Mahaveer Singh By Caste Rajput, Aged About 38 Years, 10-11 Chand Vihar Nagari, Khatipura, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology Govt. Of Raj., Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Director, Department Of Mines And Geology (Mines), Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur.

¶9

The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Sirohi.

¶10

The Additional Director (Mines), Department Of Mines And Geology, Jodhpur.

¶11

Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Branch - Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Through Its Branch Manager.

¶12

Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Branch- Aerodrome Road, Kota, Through Its Branch Manager.

¶13

Union Bank, Branch Sikar Road, Jaipur, Through Its Branch Manager.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, Sr. Advocate-cumAAG assisted by Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Rathore

¶16

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

¶17

Order

¶18

21/04/2023

¶19

1 . Learned counsel for the respondents submits that an identical controversy has already been adjudicated by a Co-

[2023/RJJD/011503]

[CW-4199/2020]

(2 of 4)

ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Graphtech Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4188/2020, decided on 14.03.2023 alongwith connected matters). The judgment reads as follows:-

¶24

“1. The lawyers are abstaining from the work.

¶25

2. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred, in sum and substance, with the following prayers, and for the sake of convenience, the prayer clauses are being taken from the leading case, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4188/2020:-

¶26

“I. The order dated 24.04.2020 (Annexure-1) passed by respondent No.4 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶27

II. The respondent department may kindly be directed to exempt/waive the monthly installment during the period of lockdown, and

¶28

III. Direct the respondents to grant remission/concession from the deposition of installment of excess royalty and DMFT amount and for the consequential reduction in the contract amount of the installments due for the relevant period of ‘Lockdown’ and

¶29

IV. call for record of the entire proceeding in the present matter.”

¶30

3. It is informed by Mr. Sandeep Shah, Senior Counsel cum AAG assisted by Ms. Akshiti Singhvi that the controversy is resolved due to the Amensty Scheme floated by the State Government whereby relief has been granted to the present petitioners.

¶31

4. Learned Senior Counsel cum Additional Advocate General fairly submits that the question which may be remaining is that the amounts which have already deposited before the Amensty Scheme having been applied, would be sought to be refunded by the petitioners.

¶32

5. This Court, on perusal of the record, finds that a reasonable stand has been taken by the State of Rajasthan by providing requisite relaxations in the Amensty Scheme and thus, the petitioners have been given the broader relief. The proposition which has been brought to the notice by the learned Additional Advocate General as well as the private person appearing is that

(3 of 4)

[2023/RJJD/011503]

[CW-4199/2020]

certain amounts in excess to the Amensty Scheme which has been paid are at stake. In this regarding, it is directed that the State of Rajasthan shall take a considered decision and the petitioners are directed to file a detailed representation for seeking refund of the excess amount paid by them or any other relief which remains after the applicability of the Amensty Scheme.

¶37

6. Such representation shall be preferred by the petitioners within a period of fifteen days from today and thereafter, the respondents shall be required to pass a speaking order within a period of sixty days from the date of receiving the representation alongwith certified copy of this order. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty approach this Court again, if required.

¶38

7. In view of above, the present petitions are disposed of. All pending applications stand disposed of.”

¶39

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

¶40

4 . This Court, on perusal of the record, finds that a reasonable stand has been taken by the State of Rajasthan by providing requisite relaxations in the Amensty Scheme and thus, the petitioner has been given the broader relief. The proposition which has been brought to the notice by the learned Additional Advocate General, is that certain amounts in excess to the Amensty Scheme which has been paid are at stake. In this regard, it is directed that the State of Rajasthan shall take a considered decision and the petitioner is directed to file a detailed representation for seeking refund of the excess amount paid by them or any other relief which remains after the applicability of the Amensty Scheme.

(4 of 4)

[2023/RJJD/011503]

[CW-4199/2020]

5 . Such representation shall be preferred by the petitioner within a period of fifteen days from today and thereafter, the respondents shall be required to pass a speaking order within a period of sixty days from the date of receiving the representation alongwith certified copy of this order. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty approach this Court again, if required.

¶45

6 . In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of in same terms as in the order passed by the Hon’ble Court in the case of M/s. Graphtech Exim Pvt. Ltd. (supra).

¶46

(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J

¶47

surabhii/124-

M/S Shree Shiv Jyoti Enterprises Pvt. Limited v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shree Shiv Jyoti Enterprises Pvt. 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

Rajesh Barasa Vs State of Rajasthan

Mool Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Satya Narayan Vs Askaran Singh

Lokendra Pal Singh Vs Jai Narain Vyas University,Jodhpur and Ors.

Harshita Ramina Vs Director, Board of Secondary Edu.

Jagat Pal Vs State of Rajasthan