M/S Gotan Limestone Khanij Udyog ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14419 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 219/2022

M/s Gotan Limestone Khanij Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered Office At D7, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Rajasthan Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder, Mr. Shreyans Kavdia S/o Shri C.k. Kavdia, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of D7, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Mines Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Joint Secretary, Mines (Gr. 2) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Rajasthan, Udaipur.

4. Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Gotan, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur.

5. J.K. Cement Limited At Village Gotan, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Ms. Alankrita Sharma Mr. Anjay Kothari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Gupta, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ramit Mehta Ms. Shweta Chauhan Mr. Saurabh Maheshwari Mr. Tarun Dudhia

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

08/12/2022

1. By way of the present Intra-Court Appeal preferred under

Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, the appellant

has challenged order dated 28.02.2022, passed by the learned

Single Judge, whereby, application seeking impleadment filed by

the respondent No.5- J.K. Cement Limited has been allowed.

(2 of 6) [SAW-219/2022]

2. Though the case in hand has a chequered history, but for the

present purposes, suffice it to state that appellant-writ petitioner

has filed a writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12253/2019)

challenging the order dated 28.11.2017, passed by the State

Government (Joint Secretary, Department of Mines), whereby its

application for transfer of the mining lease has been rejected.

3. Apart from the prayer to set aside the order of the State

Government dated 28.11.2017, the petitioner has also prayed that

the respondents be directed to consider the transfer of mining

lease in its favour while treating the period from the date of

determination of mining lease (16.12.2014) till such time that the

mining lease is restored and possession is handed over to the

petitioner, as Dias-Non.

4. While the writ petition filed by the appellant was pending, an

impleadment application came to be filed by the respondent No.5,

inter alia, stating that its rights are likely to be affected by any

order to be passed in the writ petition under consideration,

therefore, it be impleaded as respondent.

5. Detailed submissions were made and a plethora of

judgments were cited by the present appellant so also the

respondent No.5 before the learned Single Judge.

6. After considering the same, learned Single Judge has allowed

the impleadment application filed by the respondent No.5,

essentially on the following counts:

(i) If the petitioner's second prayer is granted and the

period from 16.12.2014 till the time of handing over

the possession of the mining lease is treated as Dias-

(3 of 6) [SAW-219/2022]

Non, rights of the prospective applicants, including

the applicant (respondent No.5) would be affected.

(ii) The applicant was a party to the earlier writ

petition filed by the appellant (M/s Gotan Limestone

Khanij Udyog Pvt. Ltd.) being S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.9669/2014; before the Division Bench and also

before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, when not only the

appeal filed by the present appellant was disposed of

but also the separate SLP (being SLP No.23311/2015)

filed by the applicant was disposed of.

(iii) The applicant's impleadment would not adversely

affect the petitioner but in fact, would enable the

Court to adjudicate rival claims.

7. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the appellant argued that the learned Single Judge has seriously

erred in accepting impleadment application under Order I Rule 10

of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the respondent No.5

(J.K. Cement Limited), against which neither any relief has been

claimed nor are any of its rights likely to be affected.

8. It was also argued that petitioner is dominus litis of his case

and nobody can force himself into the litigation against the wishes

of the petitioner/plaintiff, particularly, when none of his rights are

prejudiced by the relief claimed in the writ petition.

9. While inviting Court's attention towards the pleadings and

reliefs claimed, it was argued that the petitioner has simply sought

restoration of its mining lease and none of the rights of the

respondent No.5 (J.K. Cement Limited) are going to be affected, if

the relief as claimed in the writ petition is granted.

(4 of 6) [SAW-219/2022]

10. Mr. Sudhir Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent No.5, on the other hand, argued that not

only the issue involved, even the rights involved herein are

identical to the earlier writ petition filed by it (S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.9669/2014) and since, the application filed by his

client in earlier writ petition was allowed and he was permitted to

contest the case till Hon'ble the Supreme Court, there is no reason

why the applicant- respondent No.5 should be denied such right in

the case before learned Single Judge.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5

submitted that after the impugned order was passed by learned

Single Judge, the respondent No.5 has filed its reply/counter

affidavit and the matter is ripe for hearing on 13.12.2022. Hence,

no indulgence be granted in the present Intra-Court Appeal.

12. It was also argued that in the earlier round of litigation

before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the Apex Court in its judgment

reported in (2016) 4 SCC 469 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs.

Gotan Lime Stone Khanji Udyog Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.) had restored the

order cancelling petitioner's mining lease and the order dated

28.11.2017 impugned in the subject writ petition is an order

passed in furtherance of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme

Court, which had given a direction to the State to pass a fresh

order after formulating the policy.

13. He argued that if the writ petition is decided in absence of

the respondent No.5, its right to claim mining rights pursuant to

an auction would be jeopardised, particularly, when Hon'ble the

Supreme Court had given clear direction for conducting auction of

(5 of 6) [SAW-219/2022]

all the mining leases, including the mining lease that is the subject

matter of the present writ petition.

14. Heard rival counsel and perused the relevant material.

15. It is not in dispute that newly impleaded respondent was a

party to the earlier round of litigation before this Court and before

Hon'ble the Supreme Court and that the issue in earlier writ

petition so also in the present writ petition is, cancellation of the

mining lease of the appellant-writ petitioner for having transferred

the lease without prior permission.

16. We see no reason to keep the respondent No.5 away from

the proceedings, particularly, when its application in earlier writ

petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge in the year 2013

and the same attained finality.

17. It is to be noted that the writ petitioner has mentioned the

name of the respondent No.5 (J.K. Cement Limited) at a number

of places and has made averments concerning it. Hence, the

newly added respondent may not be a necessary, but is a proper

party.

18. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.5 (J.K. Cement

Limited) has also filed writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.404/2013 and the same has been tagged with the writ petition

filed by the appellant.

19. Since, the writ petition filed by the present appellant and writ

petition filed by the respondent No.5 (J.K. Cement Limited) are

required to be heard together, the newly added respondent will, in

any case, have its say in the matter and therefore, no fruitful

purpose would be served by interfering in the impugned order,

which is otherwise just and proper.

(6 of 6) [SAW-219/2022]

20. That apart, the order impugned was passed by the learned

Single Judge on 28.02.2022 and the newly added respondent has

filed its reply/counter affidavit and the matter is ripe for hearing.

Hence, there is no possibility of matter being dragged or

prolonged.

21. Therefore, any intervention by us at this stage would not be

expedient inasmuch as the respondent No.5 has filed its counter

affidavit and the pleadings are complete. Striking the name of

respondent No.5 from the array of respondents, even if deemed

appropriate, is not advisable/warranted.

22. Learned Single Judge has exercised its discretion and has

allowed impleadment application filed by the respondent. We do

not find it to be a fit case to interfere in the discretion exercised

by the learned Single Judge.

23. The Intra-Court Appeal, therefore, fails.

                                   (DINESH MEHTA),J                                      (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ


                                    41-pooja/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)