Quashed

M/S Vaishali Marbles and Granites v. State Mines Department Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 Feb 2024CW/2956/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan quashed state orders rejecting the petitioner's mining lease renewal application for violating natural justice. The matter was remitted for fresh orders after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 13.01.2012 and 23.01.2012 quashed and set aside. Matter remitted for fresh orders after hearing.

M/S Vaishali Marbles and Granites Vs State Mines… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:5347]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2956/2012

¶4

M/s Vaishali Marbles And Granites Pvt Ltd through Ashish Gupta son of Shri Ramesh Kumar Gupta, aged about 23 years, Director of the Company, Registered Officer at 2-Gha-9, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Superintendent Mining Engineer, Jaipur Zone, Jaipur.

¶9

Mining Engineer, Jaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Chobisa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Zaqir Hussain, AGC

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

01/02/2024

¶15

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

¶16

following prayer:

¶17

“(a) by issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 13.01.2012 (Annx-15) passed by the State Govt as well as order dated 23.01.2011 (Annx-16) passed by the SME, Jaipur Zone, Jaipur be set aside and;

¶18

(b) by issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction if any pre-judicial order is passed during the pendency of the writ petition then same may also be set aside and

¶19

(c) Any other writ order or direction which may be deemed proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued in favour of the petitioner.”

(2 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:5347]

[CW-2956/2012]

By way of filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the orders dated 13.01.2012 and 23.01.2012 passed by the respondents.

¶24

Counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the mining lease was granted to the petitioner in year 1990 for conducting the mining activities in the demarcated area. Counsel submits that after expiry of the aforesaid term an application was submitted for renewal of the mining lease wherein the respondents pointed out certain deficiencies. Counsel submits that the petitioner rectified some of the deficiencies as pointed out by the respondents and other deficiencies were required to be explained by the respondents, but without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the State respondent passed an ex-parte order on 13.01.2012 directing the Mining Engineer to cancel the renewal application filed by the petitioner. Counsel submits that in pursuance of the said order the Mining Engineer rejected the renewal application filed by the petitioner. Counsel submits that the above exercise was done ex-parte without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the orders impugned passed by respondents are not tenable in the eye of law and the same are liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel for the State respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that mining lease was granted to the petitioner for a specific demarcated area but he submitted an application for the

[2024:RJ-JP:5347]

[CW-2956/2012]

(3 of 4)

area which was never allotted to the petitioner. Counsel submits that the area for which the petitioner is claiming renewal of mining lease is falling in Jamwa Ramgarh Eco Sensitive Zone and by the orders of Hon’ble Apex Court no such mining lease can be granted for the above area. Counsel submits that considering the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of Indai and Others reported in 2011 (15) SCC 671 , the mining lease of 57 mining operation was prohibited. Counsel submits that before passing the order impugned a show cause notice was given to the petitioner but the petitioner has failed to submits any satisfactory reply, hence the order impugned have been passed. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted .

¶30

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶31

This Court is not going to decide the controversy whether the petitioner has submitted an application beyond the area earlier allotted to the petitioner for mining activities. The only question which remains for consideration and adjudication of this Court is whether the respondents have passed the orders impugned against the petitioner without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or not.

¶32

Perusal of both the orders impugned dated 13.01.2012 as well as the subsequent order dated 23.01.2012 indicate that before issuing any notice to the petitioner, these orders have been

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:5347]

[CW-2956/2012]

passed which resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶37

It is well settled proposition of law that before passing any adverse order against any aggrieved party, opportunity of hearing and notice is required to be served, but in the instant case, no such exercise has been done by the respondents.

¶38

In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 13.01.2012 as well as the order dated 23.01.2012 stand quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondents for passing fresh orders on the renewal application filed by the petitioner after affording him opportunity of hearing, strictly in accordance with law.

¶39

The respondents are further directed to pass fresh reasond cogent orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶40

In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶41

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶42

KuD/45

M/S Vaishali Marbles and Granites v. State Mines Department Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Vaishali Marbles and Granites v. State Mines Department Ors.

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

Sariska Tiger Project Vs Madan Lal Gurjar S/O Gokul

Hemant Kumar Lukkar Son of Shri Hans Raj Lukkar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Prabhu Narain Meena S/O Late Shri Rudmal Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Chand Agarwal Son of Shri Bhorelal Agarwal Vs Income Tax Officer

Sitevi Infraprojects Private Limited Vs Union of India

Mrs. Bharti Jain, Wife of Mr. Pramod Jain Vs the Income Tax Officer, Ward - I