M/S Shriram Minerals vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 4208 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3091/2022

M/s Shriram Minerals, Makrana District Nagour Through Its Partner Shri Kailash Dhoot S/o Late Shri Gauri Shankar Dhoot By Caste Maheshwari Aged 63 R/o Nawa City Tehsil Nawa District Nagaur Through Its Power Of Holder Shri Ramchandra Gila S/o Shri Amraram Gila By Caste Jat Aged 36 R/o Gila Ki Dhaani, Matabhar Road, Makrana Tehsil And District Nagour (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. The Joint Secretary (Mines), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Presently The Deputy Secretary, Mines).

3. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur.

4. The Additional Director (Mines), Mines And Geology Department, Udaipur Zone, Udaipur (Rajasthan).

5. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Udaipur Zone, Udaipur.

6. The Assistant/mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Banswara (Rajasthan).

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                           Judgment / Order

16/03/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-firm being

aggrieved with the order dated 18.01.2022 passed by respondent

No.2, whereby the appeal filed by it under Rule 43 of the

Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter to be

(2 of 5) [CW-3091/2022]

referred as 'the Rules of 1986'), has been dismissed. The said

appeal was preferred by the petitioner-firm being aggrieved with

the order dated 29.11.2016 passed by respondent No.4, whereby

the appeal preferred by it under Rule 45 and 46(2) of the Rules of

1986 was dismissed.

The brief facts of the case are that initially, the mining lease

in question was allotted in the name of one Moij Ali S/o Saikh

Abdeli on 02.06.1989. The said mining lease came to an end on

11.09.1999 and the same was transferred in the name of the

petitioner-firm vide agreement dated 23.05.1992 and till

17.09.2003, the same was operated by the petitioner-firm.

Vide order dated 17.09.2003, the mining lease in question

was cancelled by the Mining Department as the petitioner-firm

failed to deposit the dues with the Mining Department despite

service of notice upon it.

After cancellation of the mining lease in the year 2003, for

the first time, the petitioner-firm has filed an appeal before the

respondent No.4 on 19.07.2016. However, the said appeal came

to be dismissed on 29.11.2016 on the ground of limitation only.

Being aggrieved with the order dated 29.11.2016, the petitioner-

firm preferred a second appeal, which came to be dismissed by

the respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 18.01.2022.

Hence, this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both

the authorities below have rejected the appeals preferred by the

petitioner-firm without taking into consideration the fact that the

delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained and there was

no reason to ignore the same.

(3 of 5) [CW-3091/2022]

Learned counsel for the petitioner-firm has further submitted

that after cancellation of the said mining lease, no third party right

has been created and the mining area is lying vacant at present.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-firm has further submitted that

the authorities below have also not taken into consideration the

fact that petitioner-firm has already cleared all the dues way back

in the year 2015 itself and taking into consideration the above

facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders are

liable to be set aside.

In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the

petitioner-firm has placed reliance on the decisions dated

06.11.2017 and 12.04.2018 passed by this Court in M/s Sojat

Lime Company Vs. State & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.14717/2016) and Marudhar Singh Vs. State & Ors. (S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.5881/2016) respectively.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-firm and perused

the material available on record.

In the writ petition, it is specifically averred that partner of

the petitioner-firm Kailash Dhoot was looking and operating the

mining lease area in question. It is further averred that as he met

with an accident on 01.02.2003 and due to ailment of his father,

he could not pursue the renewal application of the mining lease

and has also failed to deposit the dead rent and to complete all

the formalities. It is further averred by the petitioner-firm that

father of Kailash Dhoot was expired on 29.12.2006, however, due

to ill health of Kailash Dhoot, he was not able to perform functions

properly, thus he failed to approach the mining authorities. It is

further averred that when Kailash Dhoot was fully recovered from

(4 of 5) [CW-3091/2022]

his ailments in the year 2016, he approached the mining

authorities.

The sum and substance of the said averments in the writ

petition suggests that the partner of the petitioner-firm Kailash

Dhoot is fully recovered and is ready to operate the mining lease.

It is noticed that this writ petition is filed on behalf of the

petitioner-firm through its partner Kailash Dhoot through his

power of attorney Ramchandra Gila. Copy of the power of attorney

is annexed with this writ petition as Annexure-1. The said power

of attorney was registered on 21.07.2016, wherein it is clearly

mentioned that Kailash Dhoot has authorised one Ramchandra

Gila to conduct all mining activities in the mining area in question

on his behalf and all the rights and liabilities, if any in relation to

the said mining area, have been given to Ramchandra Gila by

Kailash Dhoot.

Taking into consideration the above facts, this Court is of the

opinion that this writ petition is filed on behalf of petitioner-firm

through its partner Kailash Dhoot by making a false statement

that now he is fully recovered from his ailments and is ready to

operate the mining lease in question, but on the other hand, he

has already executed power of attorney in July, 2016 itself in

favour of one Ramchandra Gila authorising him to conduct all the

mining activities on his behalf.

It appears that the petitioner-firm or its partner Mr. Kailash

Dhoot has no interest in the mining lease in question and it is the

Ramchandra Gila only, in favour of whom, the power of attorney is

executed by the partner of the petitioner-firm, is attempting to

revive the mining lease on behalf of petitioner-firm which was

cancelled way back in the year 2003.

(5 of 5) [CW-3091/2022]

Taking into consideration the above fact and circumstances

of the case, I am of the view that challenge to the orders passed

by the authorities below and seeking revival of the mining lease in

question on behalf of the petitioner-firm is not bonafide. Hence, no

relief can be granted to the petitioner-firm.

Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed. Stay petition is

also dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

15-Ajay/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)