Narendra Pal Talesara vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 10513 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Narendra Pal Talesara vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 7 December, 2023

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2023:RJ-JD:42668]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                       AT JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11333/2023

Narendra Pal Talesara S/o Shri Bhura Lal Talesara, Aged About
65 Years, R/o Nathdwara Road, Banediya, Tehsil Railmagra,
District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
                                                                            ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.          The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
            Mines      Department,            Government               Of      Rajasthan,
            Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2.          The Joint Secretary, Mines Department, Government Of
            Rajasthan (Group-Ii) Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.          The      Director,       Mines       And       Geology          Department,
            Government       Of      Rajasthan,        Khanij         Bhawan,    Udaipur,
            Rajasthan.
4.          The Additional Director, Mines And Geology Department,
            Government       Of      Rajasthan,        Khanij         Bhawan,    Udaipur,
            Rajasthan.
5.          Mining     Engineer,       The      Office       Of       Mining    Engineer,
            Rajsamand, Group Ii, Rajsamand.
                                                                        ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)                :   Mr. Sajjan Singh.
                                     Mr. Manvendra Singh with Saumya
                                     Chowdhary & Mr. Vikram Singh.

For Respondent(s)                :   Mr. Digvijay Singh, AGC.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

07/12/2023

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed for the following

reliefs:-

A. "By an appropriate writ, order or direction, any order passed by the respondents denying the

[2023:RJ-JD:42668] (2 of 3) [CW-11333/2023]

allotment of mining lease to the petitioner, may kindly be quashed and set -aside.

B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, orders dated 10.05.2016 (Annex.05) and 03.07.2019 (Annex.01) passed by the respondent authority, may kindly be quashed and set aside.

C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, order dated 20.05.2013 (Annex.04) passed by the respondent authority, may kindly be quashed and set aside.

D. By an appropriate writ, order, or direction, the respondent authority may kindly be directed to decide the case of the petitioner on merit.

E. By an appropriate writ, order, or direction, the respondent authority may kindly be directed to condone the delay in renewing the lease agreement of the petitioner while considering his prevailing medical condition".

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a

judgment of this Court dated 06.11.2017 delivered in S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.14717/2016 (M/s Sojat Lime Company Vs. State

of Rajasthan & Ors.).

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to

refute the submission made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner.

Thus, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders

dated 20.05.2013(Annex.4), 10.05.2016(Annex.5) &

03.07.2019(Annex.01) are quashed and set aside.

The petitioner shall be allowed to proceed with the mining

subject to his deposition of the balance amount along with the

[2023:RJ-JD:42668] (3 of 3) [CW-11333/2023]

penalty etc. as calculated by the respondents authority in terms of

the Rules prevailing on the subject. The said amount shall be

determined within one month from today and the petitioner shall

deposit the said amount within one month thereafter.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 368-AnilSingh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)