Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chanchal Jain vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 March, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Rameshwar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Writ Misc Application No. 155/2020
Chanchal Jain W/o Shri G L Jain, Aged About 56 Years, Through
Power Of Attorney Holder Shri G L Jain, Son Of Shri Tejaraj Jain,
Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Flat No. C-804, Shantiban
Society, Opposite V Iit College, Kondhwa Budruk, (Katraj
Kondhwa Road), Pune-411048 (Maharashtra)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through - Principal Mines Secretary,
Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.L. Jain (Power of Attorney of
applicant- in person)
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS
Order
Reserved on 03/03/2022
Pronounced on 09/03/2022
1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread
of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety
of all concerned.
2. This misc. application under Section 151 CPC has been
preferred claiming the following relief:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed
that this Hon'ble Court mercifully be pleased to call for
original records of the respondents and status report
of mining leases in Aravali Hills Range areas and to re-
(Downloaded on 09/03/2022 at 09:03:41 PM)
(2 of 5) [WMAP-155/2020]
call the impugned order dated 07-08-2020 and to
decide the SAW No.1442/2019 on merits afresh and to
grant the requisite reliefs in terms of SAW
No.1442/2019 to meet the ends of justice."
3. The bone of contention in the present case is non-grant of
mining lease to the applicant-appellant on account of her non-
execution of agreement within specified time and not being able to
get her land demarcated, since the area fell within the specified
Aravali Hills. The prospective licenses had been issued in favour of
the applicant-appellant on 15.01.1998 and 27.01.1998, but the
same were revoked vide orders dated 08.03.2000 and
10.06.1999, respectively.
4. The applicant/appellant aggrieved by the same, filed two
revision petitions before the Mines Tribunal in 2001, and
subsequently preferred writ petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court challenging order passed by the respondents and the
litigation therein continued even after the Mines Tribunal disposed
off the revision petitions. In 2009, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court
set aside the orders passed by the Mines Tribunal with a direction
to decide the revision petitions afresh. Upon which, the Mines
Tribunal in 2010 noticed that the signatures in the demarcation
report and field book were forged and allowed the revision
petition, setting aside the State's order, dated 08.03.2000.
Subsequently, the State Government sent the said documents for
FSL investigation and the same was confirmed. In accordance with
the direction of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the applicant-
appellant submitted an application before the respondents seeking
certain reliefs, and that upon non-addressal of the application by
the respondents, the applicant/appellant preferred a contempt
(Downloaded on 09/03/2022 at 09:03:41 PM)
(3 of 5) [WMAP-155/2020]
application before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, wherein a
direction to decide the application so made, was issued to the
respondents and liberty was granted to the applicant/appellant to
file afresh, if the need so arose. Whereupon the respondents
decided the application so made, but did not find in favour of the
applicant/appellant. Thereafter, the applicant/appellant
approached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court whereupon an order was
passed directing the applicant/appellant to file a civil suit. And
upon an objection by the respondents regarding jurisdiction, leave
was granted to the applicant/appellant to approach the competent
authority in a competent jurisdiction. And that, the
applicant/appellant thereafter approached this Hon'ble Court at
Jaipur Bench by filing SBCWP No.11843/2018, which was decided
on 24.07.2018, while giving liberty to the applicant to approach
the Principal Seat of this Hon'ble Court at Jodhpur, where the
jurisdiction lies.
5. Mr. G.L. Jain (Power of Attorney of applicant) in person
submits that the respondents have played fraud before the
Hon'ble Court and had harassed and humiliated the petitioner,
while also deliberately breached their statutory duty.
5.1 He further submits that the respondents/officials have
hatched conspiracy, and have submitted fabricated/forged
documents for the purpose of abusing the process of law.
5.2 He also submits that the FSL report clearly reveals the
forged signatures and false affidavits, to frustrate the legitimate
rights and claims of the applicant.
5.3 He further submits that the non-execution of the license is
entirely due to malafide and illegal acts of the respondents. He
also submits that the applicant has been denied natural justice
(Downloaded on 09/03/2022 at 09:03:41 PM)
(4 of 5) [WMAP-155/2020]
over the period of 18 years without any cogent reason, thereby
causing loss of livelihood to the petitioner.
5.4 He relied upon the following judgments, while submitting
that the applicant is lawfully entitled for the adequate
compensation/damages from the Government for injury and
violation of the fundamental rights of the applicant under the Law
of Torts:
(a) Jay Laxmi Salt Works Pvt. Ltd Vs. State of Gujarat, (1994) 4
SCC 1;
(b) Chairman, Railway Board Vs. Chandrima Doss, AIR 2000 SC
988;
(c) ABL International Ltd. Vs. ECGC, (2004) 3 SCC 553;
(d) Mr. Gatakala Venkateshwarlu Vs. Union of India, LPA
No.1080/2006 decided on 01.10.2007 by the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court.
6. This Court in the impugned order, dated 07.08.2020,
whereby the earlier order of the learned Single Judge was
affirmed, while taking note of the reasoning employed by the
learned Single Judge and the strength derived from the precedent
law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court; accordingly the appeal so
preferred by the applicant/appellant was dismissed.
7. This Court observes that ultimately the licenses in question
were issued in the year 1999 and 2000, and that given that a
period of 20 years has elapsed since then, and thus, it would not
be within the power of this Court, in its writ jurisdiction, to grant
the petitioner the superfluous relief of compensation to the tune of
Rs. 19,500 Crores (Non Taxable), along with Exemption Tax
Certificate granting exemption from the payment of Income Tax on
such amount. Moreover, the learned Single Judge has rightly
(Downloaded on 09/03/2022 at 09:03:41 PM)
(5 of 5) [WMAP-155/2020]
observed that the area in question falls within the prohibited area,
in light of the directive of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N.
Godavarman Thirumalpad and Society, Protection of
Human Rights and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2008)
16 SCC 401.
8. The issues raised in the written submissions as well as oral
submissions of the applicant on merits were already examined by
this Hon'ble Court at the time of final adjudication of the Writ
Petition No.13168/2018 (decided on 14.10.2019).
9. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present application
is dismissed.
(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
2-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
