Karnataka High Court
Vinod Goel S/O Madanlal Goel vs Union Of India on 5 July, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI
W.P.NO.37907 OF 2009 (GM-MM-S)
C/W
R.P.NO.474 OF 2009
&
W.P.NO.22348/2009 (GM-MM-S)
IN W.P.NO.37907 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
CHOWGULE & COMPANY PRIVATE LTD
CHOWGULE HOUSE,
MORMUGAO HARBOUR
GOA - 403
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR (MINING)
SHRI RAMESH N SHETTY, S/O LATE H NARAYANA SHETTY,
RESIDENT OF GOA
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF MINES, DEPARTMENT OF MINES
SHASTRI BHAVAN, DR RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD
NEW DELHI - 1
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
MINES, SSI & TEXTILES
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001
*Vide Chamber Order dated 18.07.2022,
Page No.1 is retyped and replaced.
2
3. SHREE SAI VENKATESHWARA MINERALS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
VINOD GOEL NO.408, 12TH MAIN,
RMV EXTENTION SADASHIVANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 080
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R2; SRI. M.VINAYA
KEERTHY, ADV. FOR R3 - ABSENT; CGSC FOR R1 - ABSENT)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT MADE IN W.P
NO.22348/2009 DATED 26.08.09 VIDE ANNEXURE-J; b) ISSUE
SUCH OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION
AS IT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN R.P.NO.474 OF 2009
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES
VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-1
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA)
AND:
1. VINOD GOEL
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O MADANLAL GOEL,
PROPRIETOR, SHREE SAI VENKATESHWARA MINERALS
NO.408, 12TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION
SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 080
2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF MINES, SHASTRI BHAVAN
NEW DELHI - 110 001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.VINAYA KEERTHI, ADV. FOR R1 - ABSENT;
CGSC FOR R2 - ABSENT)
*Vide Chamber order dated 18.07.2022
page No.2 is retyped and replaced
3
THIS RP FILED UNDER ORDER 47, RULE 1 OF CPC,
PRAYING FOR a) REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 26-08-2009
PASSED IN WP NO.22348/2009 BY RECALLING THE SAME AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION NO.22348/2009
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT; b) GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER
OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTNCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN W.P.NO.22348/2009
BETWEEN:
VINOD GOEL
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O MADANLAL GOEL
PROPRIETOR SHREE SAI VENKATESHWARA MINERALS,
# 408, 12TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION,
SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 080
.... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.VINAYA KEERTHI, ADV. - ABSENT)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINSITRY OF MINES,
SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES
VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001
3. DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY, KHANIJA
BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(CGSC FOR R1-ABSENT; SRI.S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CONSIDER
THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-F AND
GRANT MINING LEASE IN HIS FAVOUR FOR CARRYING OUT
MINING ACTIVITY OVER AN EXTENT OF 550 ACRES IN JOG,
THIMMAPPANAGUDI, BHAVIHALLI, NEB RONGE, SANDUR
TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT.
THESE WPs C/W RP COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
* Vide Chamber order dated 18.07.2022
page No.3 is retyped and replaced
4
ORDER
Mr. D.L.N. Rao, learned Senior counsel for
Sri.Anirudh Anand, learned counsel for petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Mahendra, learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondent No.2.
In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks recall
of the order dated 26.08.2009 passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.22348/2009.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
urged twin grounds seeking relief of recall of the
order dated 26.08.2009.
3. Firstly, it is contended that the petitioner
who was necessary party to the lis was not
impleaded in the writ petition and therefore,
Judgment dated 26.08.2009 passed by the Division
Bench deserves to be recalled. Secondly, it is urged
that the Division Bench of this Court was mislead
and an order dated 09.10.2007 was produced
stating that the State Government had
recommended the grant of mining lease in favour of
respondent No.3 - Government of India. It is pointed
out that the aforesaid recommendation does not
exist and was created by respondent No.3 to get
directions in the judgment dated 26.08.2009. It is
further submitted that even otherwise in view of
Section 10-A (i) of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the
application submitted by the respondent No.3
becomes ineligible for grant of mining lease.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional
Government Advocate submitted that being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.08.2009, the
State Government has also filed the Review Petition.
It is further been stated that no recommendation
was made by the State Government in favour of
respondent No.3 with regard to mining lease and
the aforesaid document is fake.
5. We have considered the submissions
made by both sides.
6. In view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Shivdeo Singh and Ors. Vs. State of
Punjuab and Ors1, the petitioner has a right to
seek the relief for recall of the judgment. The
petitioner is a necessary party to the lis, however,
without impleading the petitioner, respondent No.3
filed the writ petition which was decided in the
absence of the petitioner. In addition, respondent
No.3 sought direction contained in the writ petition
on the basis of a forged document viz., alleged
recommendation dated 09.10.2007 in its favour,
which does not exists. The aforesaid fact is also
fortified from the endorsement dated 22.10.2009
furnished by the State Government of Karnataka
under the Right to Information Act.
AIR 1963 SC 1909
7. For the aforementioned reasons,
judgment dated 26.08.2009 passed in
W.P.No.22348/2009 is recalled. The writ petition
filed by respondent No.3 (petitioner in
W.P.No.22348/2009) is dismissed, as the same has
been obtained on the basis of a forged document.
In the result, the writ petition filed by the
petitioner as well as the connected review petition
filed by the State Government of Karnataka succeed
and are hereby allowed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RR
* Vide Chamber order dated 18.07.2022
Page No.7 is retyped and replaced
