Delhi High Court
Techmech Ores And Minerals And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 August, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
51$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6213/2011 & CM No.12531/2011 (for stay)
TECHMECH ORES AND MINERALS AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. S. Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Arijit Mazumdar, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra & Mr. Mukesh Kr.
Tiwari, Advs. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 26.08.2011
1. The petitioner no.1 firm was an applicant for a Prospecting Licence (PL)
with respect to land in village Maddevra, District Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh.
The State Government in the meeting held on 8th May, 2007 rejected the
application of the petitioner firm for the reason of being incomplete and after
considering the other applications before it, approved grant of Prospecting
Licences to respondents No5&6.
2. The petitioner firm preferred a revision petition to the Central
Government and which was dismissed vide order dated 15 th March, 2010
impugned in this petition.
3. Upon enquiry as to why the petitioners have approached after a long
delay of one and a half years, the senior counsel for the petitioners states that
subsequent to the order dated 15th March, 2010, the Central Government has
vide letter dated 8th June, 2010 returned the proposal forwarded by the State
Government qua respondent No.6 to the State Government for re-examination.
It is further contended that the respondent No.6 has filed a writ petition being
W.P.(C) No.4929/2011 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
challenging the order dated 8th June, 2010 of the Central Government returning
the proposal qua the respondent No.6. It is further stated, though no
document in that regard has been filed, that the proposal qua respondent No.5
also has been so returned. It is yet further the case of the petitioners that the
Jabalpur High Court, in the writ petition aforesaid preferred by the respondent
No.6, has vide order dated 28th March, 2011 restrained the State Government
from submitting any fresh proposal to the Central Government.
4. It is the contention of the senior counsel for the petitioners that owing to
the aforesaid, the matter is now open for the State Government to reconsider
the proposals / applications of all the applicants including the petitioners and
thus the petitioners feel the need to impugn the order dated 15 th March, 2010.
5. The senior counsel for the petitioners further contends that the order of
the Central Government dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioners for
the reason of the re-constitution of the petitioner firm is palpably illegal and
liable to be set aside.
6. The adjudication of the questions as raised would necessarily entail the
inter se rights of the petitioners on the one hand and the respondents No.5&6
on the other hand. It is for this reason only that the respondents No.5&6 have
been impleaded as respondents to this petition. However, as aforesaid, the
respondent no.6 has already approached the High Court at Jabalpur.
7. In the circumstances, it is felt that the entertaining this writ petition in
this Court may result in conflicting decision and it is deemed expedient to
avoid the same at the threshold only. The land with respect to which
Prospecting Licence is sought being situated at Madhya Pradesh and all the
respondents save the Central Government being also situated at Madhya
Pradesh, it is deemed appropriate that the Jabalpur High Court only being
already seized of the matter deals with the challenge by the petitioners also.
The Full Bench of this Court in judgment dated 1 st August, 2011 in W.P.(C)
No.6570/2010 titled Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI has held that even
though the High Court of Delhi may have jurisdiction for the reason of the
revisional / appellate authority being situated within the jurisdiction of this
Court but this Court can always refuse to exercise the discretion if some other
High Court is found to be more suitable to deal with the issues raised.
8. Of course, the senior counsel for the petitioners has contended that the
petitioners being based at Kolkata find it more convenient to pursue the matter
before this Court than before the High Court at Jabalpur. However,
considering the location of all the parties, the said fact does not persuade me to
entertain this petition before this Court.
9. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to
approach the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
AUGUST 26, 2011
'gsr'
