Karnataka High Court
Chowgule & Company Private Ltd vs Government 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
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
2
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES
AND COMMERCE
M S BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001
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)
3
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.VINAYKA KEERTHI, ADV. FOR R1 - ABSENT;
CGSC FOR R2 - ABSENT)
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.
THIS WP C/W RP COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
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 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
