Dismissed

Nikku Singh Kalra v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Apr 2024CW/2315/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought impleadment of government departments in an underlying suit regarding mining royalty. Trial Court rejected application; High Court, hearing a writ petition, allowed withdrawal and dismissed the writ.

What the court decided

AI extract

Nikku Singh Kalra Vs State of Rajasthan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

(1 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:14407]

[CW-2315/2024]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2315/2024

¶6

Nikku Singh Kalra S/o Indrajeet Singh Kalra, Aged About 46 Years, R/o 20, Sindhu Nagar, Ward Number 22, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Bhilwara (Rajasthan).

¶10

Department Of Mining, Through Mining Engineer, Mining And Geology Department, Aazad Nagar, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶11

Mining Engineer, Mining And Geology Department, Aazad Nagar, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶12

Superintendent Mining Engineer, Bhilwara, Bhilwara Circle, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶13

Director, Directorate Of Mining And Geology Department, Mining Building Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶14

M/s Jindal Shaw Limited, Near Tiranga Hills, Village- Pur, Tehsil And District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶15

M/s Bhati Cargo Movers, Through Proprietor, Vishwabandhu Singh Rathore S/o Shri Anil Kuamr Singh Rathore R/o 80, Chandra Shekhar Aazad Nagar, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶16

Village Panchayat Paansal, District - Bhilwara Through Sarpanch Village - Panchayat Paansal, Tehsil And District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Godara For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramit Mehta with Mr. Tarun Dudia, for respondent No.6

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

01/04/2024

[2024:RJ-JD:14407]

[CW-2315/2024]

(2 of 5)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 22.01.2024 passed by Additional District Judge No.3, Bhilwara, whereby application preferred by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected.

¶27

Briefly noted the facts in the writ petition are that the petitioner being a successful bidder was allotted a royalty contract for collection of royalty for excavation of minor minerals for the leases allotted near Village-Dhedwas Mining Area, Tehsil & DistrictBhilwara. While the petitioner was undertaking the contractual obligations, the respondents issued an order dated 27.09.2023, whereby, private respondent No.6 was allowed to take away the overburden from the area leased out to it. Against issuance of the order dated 27.09.2023, the petitioner instituted a suit before the learned trial Court for permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit proceedings, the State Government filed reply. In the reply, certain averments were made with respect to the grant of permission to the private respondent for carrying out the mining operations. In the reply, it was also stated by the State Authorities that such permissions have been granted by different Wings/Institutions/Departments of the Government of India. In view of the reply filed by the State Government, the petitioner preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading the following departments as party respondents to the suit proceedings :-

¶28

a. Secretary, Mining Department, Government of India.

¶29

b. Secretary, Mining and Geology Department, State of Rajasthan.

[2024:RJ-JD:14407]

[CW-2315/2024]

(3 of 5)

c. The Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board

¶34

d. Member Secretary, Central Underground Water Resources and Rights, KG Marg, New Delhi.

¶35

e. The Chairman, State of Rajasthan Pollution Control Board.

¶36

f. Controller General Authority of India.

¶37

The application preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 22.01.2024 holding that the respondents named in the application are neither necessary nor proper parties in the suit. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has committed an error while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for impleadment the parties named therein. He submits that in the reply of the State Government, it has been categorically stated that the respondent No.6 is allowed to remove the overburden after proper permission was granted by the Indian Bureau of Mines. Learned counsel further submits that there are other averments which show involvement of the respondents who are sought to be impleaded by way of the present application as they permitted the respondent No.6 to carry out its mining operations. He also submits that impleadment of the parties named in the application will clarify the entire situation and since the respondent No.6 is carrying out the mining operations after having been granted proper permissions from the Institutions/Departments named in the application, therefore, they are necessary and proper parties

[2024:RJ-JD:14407]

[CW-2315/2024]

(4 of 5)

to the dispute in question. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be allowed.

¶43

Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondent No.6 submits that the petitioner has been given the contract for collection of the royalty from the minor minerals excavated from the mines leased for that purpose and since the private respondent is having the mining lease of major minerals, therefore, the area of operation of the private respondent i.e. mining lease area is explicitly excluded from the contract given to the petitioner. He further submits that the permissions granted by the respondents for excavation of the minerals to the private respondent No.6 are absolutely in accordance with law and those persons who have granted the permissions for excavation of the minerals to the respondent 6 are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. He, therefore, prays that no interference is warranted by this Hon’ble Court in the order dated 22.01.2024 passed by the learned trial Court and the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be dismissed.

¶44

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case. 8. The admitted facts in the present case are that the petitioner was granted a contract agreement for collection of royalty for the movement/removal of the minor minerals excavated from the leases granted to the mine owners in the area in question vide order dated 16.05.2023.

¶45

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition.

¶46

Permission sought for is granted.

[2024:RJ-JD:14407]

[CW-2315/2024]

(5 of 5)

The present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶51

The stay petition as well as other pending applications, if

¶52

any, also stand disposed of.

¶53

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶54

69-SunilS/Anil Singh/-

Nikku Singh Kalra v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Nikku Singh Kalra v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kavita Nayak Vs Union of India

Vivekanand Sewarth Sansthan Vs State of Rajasthan

Malkeet Kaur Vs State Bank of India

Dharmichand Acharya Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanatan Sarkhshan Samiti Degana Vs State of Rajasthan

Gaurav Bora Vs the State of Rajasthan