Delhi High Court
Kartar Singh vs Uoi & Ors. on 2 May, 2011
$~19&20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1131/2006
Date of order: 2nd May, 2011
KARTAR SINGH ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Nemo.
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1136/2006
KARTAR SINGH ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
SANJIV KHANNA, J.:
In these intra-Court appeals, orders dated 21st September,
2004 and 23rd September, 2004 passed in the Writ Petition (Civil)
Nos. 3178 and 3179/1989 are under challenge. By order dated
21st September, 2004, CM No. 11099/2004 in Writ Petition (Civil)
LPA Nos. 1131 & 1136/2006 Page 1 of 6
No. 3178/1989 and CM No. 11100/2004 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.
3179/1989 have been dismissed. By order dated 23rd September,
2004, the two writ petitions have been dismissed as infructuous.
2. The two writ petitions were filed impugning interim orders
dated 2nd June, 1989, 5th July, 1989 and 19th July, 1989 passed by
the Central Government in exercise of power under Section 30 of
the Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957
(Act, for short). The first order dated 2nd June, 1989 directed the
Government of Haryana to submit all records pertaining to
applications of the applicants, the appellant herein and Haryana
Minerals Limited for mining leases for silica sand at two different
locations in Faridabad district in the State of Haryana. By order
dated 2nd June, 1989, Government of Haryana was directed not to
take further action pursuant to the two leases granted to the
appellant. By the second order, the interim order passed on 2nd
June, 1989 was extended and the appellant was also directed not
to take further action in pursuance to the grant given by the State
of Haryana. The last order dated 19th July, 1989 noticed that the
State Government had not sent relevant records and had directed
that the said records should be made available.
3. By an order dated 8th November, 1989 passed in the two writ
LPA Nos. 1131 & 1136/2006 Page 2 of 6
petitions, Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 3178/1989 and 3179/1989, it
was directed that no orders adverse to the interest of the appellant
would be passed unless further hearing was given and the
appellant was heard. On 20th February, 1990, Rule was issued in
the two writ petitions and it was directed that in case any order
adverse to the interest of the appellant was passed, it would not be
given effect to during the pendency of the writ petitions.
4. Hearing of the Revision Petitions under Section 30 of the Act
continued before the Central Government and by an order dated
15th March, 1991, the two leases granted to the appellant by the
State of Haryana were cancelled/set aside. The appellant did not
question and challenge this order dated 15th March, 1991 passed
by the Central Government under Section 30 of the Act. It is
apparent that the appellant was enjoying the benefit of the interim
order dated 20th February, 1990 and, therefore, kept quiet.
5. The two writ petitions after admission came up for final
hearing in the Regular List. In September, 2004, after a gap of
nearly 13 years, the appellant filed two applications Nos.
11100/2004 and 11099/2004 for amendment of the writ petitions
and to challenge the order dated 15th March, 1991 passed by the
Central Government. These two applications have been dismissed
LPA Nos. 1131 & 1136/2006 Page 3 of 6
by order dated 21st September, 2004 by the learned single Judge
recording as under:-
" It may also be noticed that the petitioner
was conscious of the fact that at the stage
when the petitioner approached this Court, the
grievance was only in respect of the interim
order. The interim relief was not granted
staying the proceedings before the Central
Government, but that the final order would not
be given effect to in case it was prejudicial to
the interest of the petitioner. Rule was issued
on 20.02.1990 and the matter was expedited to
be preferably heard within 4 months. It was,
thus, expected that the writ petition would be
heard expeditiously. The matter was, however,
not heard for a considerable period of time and
has been pending since then. In the meantime,
during the pendency of the writ petition, the
final order was passed as far back as on
15.03.1991. The petitioner was under legal
advice and would be conscious of the fact that
this final order was required to be challenged
on merits since the challenge in the present
petition was only to the interim order whereby
the rights of the petitioner were kept in
abeyance. The object apparently was also that
in case an adverse final order was passed, the
same would not be immediately given effect to
and the petitioner would have liberty to
challenge the final order. The petitioner has
kept silent on this issue for more than 13 years
and there is no cogent explanation for this
delay.
The petitioner having kept silent and
having failed to challenge the final order now
seeks through this amendment to indirectly
seek what may not be possible for the
petitioner otherwise through a substantive
proceedings, since the petitioner would have to
LPA Nos. 1131 & 1136/2006 Page 4 of 6
explain the delay in challenging the final order.
It is also to be noticed that the lease was
to be granted for a period of 10 years. From
the original date, more than 15 years have
passed and the passage of time itself has to
that extent negated the relief claimed for by the
petitioner.
There has been a further development in
view of the directions passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court whereby admittedly no mining
is going on in the area for quite some time.
There is, thus, no question of any rights being
granted to anybody in view of the directions
passed by the Supreme Court."
6. Facts noticed above show that the aforesaid findings of the
learned single Judge are just, fair and as per law. Having obtained
interim order dated 20th February, 1990, the appellant did not take
steps to challenge the order dated 15th March, 1991 passed by the
Central Government. Order dated 15th March, 1991 was required
to be challenged immediately after the same was passed either by
amending the writ petition or by filing a fresh writ petition. Delay in
not bringing the order dated 15th March, 1991 to the notice of the
Court was intentional and with a purpose. The delay and laches in
moving the amendment applications justified their dismissal. The
appellant continued to enjoy the benefit of the interim order passed
by the Court on 20th February, 1990 and did not want to bring the
LPA Nos. 1131 & 1136/2006 Page 5 of 6
order dated 15th March, 1991 to the notice of the Court. The
learned single Judge has, therefore, rightly dismissed the two
amendment applications by the order dated 21st September, 2004.
It may be noticed here that the Supreme Court has already
directed ban of mining in Faridabad area. Further, as noticed by
the learned single Judge that by the order dated 10th September,
1989 leases were granted for a period of ten years and the period
has come to an end. Accordingly, we do not find any justification to
interfere with or set aside the order dated 21st September, 2004.
7. The necessary corollary and consequence is that the
challenge to the order dated 23rd September, 2004 has to fail. The
subject matter of the two writ petitions were the interim orders,
which merged and extinguished when the final order was passed
by the Central Government on 15th March, 1991 and, therefore, the
challenge to the interim order becomes infructous and
inconsequential.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE MAY 02, 2011 VKR LPA Nos. 1131 & 1136/2006 Page 6 of 6