Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S. Raj Associates vs State And Ors (2023/Rjjd/014882) on 12 May, 2023
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2023/RJJD/014882]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8789/2016
M/s. Raj Associates
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Suthar for
Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Adv.,
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijendra Kumar for Mr. DS Jasol
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
12/05/2023
1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under
Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, claiming for the
following reliefs:-
"(i) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the impugned
order dated 22.07.2016 (Annex.5) may kindly be quashed and set
aside.
(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents
be directed to not to insist or pressurize the petitioner to collect the
DMF amount for the contract in-question executed between the
petitioner and the respondent State Government on 29.3.2016.
2. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the issue
raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment
rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Federation of
Mining Association of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7646/2016, decided
on 08.11.2017). The said judgment reads as follows :-
[2023/RJJD/014882] (2 of 3) [CW-8789/2016]
"These petitions for writ are before us to question constitutional
validity of the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Contribution to
District Mineral Foundation) Rules, 2015, more specifically Rule 1
(2) and Rule 1 (3) of the Rules aforesaid. A challenge is also given
to the order dated 08.06.2016 passed by the Director, Directorate of
Mines and Geology, Udaipur directing to Additional Director
(Mines), Superintending Mining Engineers of different Mining
Zones Mining Engineers at different stations and the Assistant
Mining Engineers in the entire State for not issuing ravanas to the
mining lease holders without ensuring compliance of the provisions
of the Rules of 2015. This Court while issuing notices to the
respondents restrained the State of Rajasthan and its functionaries
from taking any coercive action against the petitioners for the
liability arising under the Rules of 2016. The cause sought to be
agitated in these petitions for writ was also pending consideration
before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the Writ Petition (Civil)
No.12027/2015 (Federation of Indian Mineral Industries & Ors. Vs.
Union of India & Anr.). In light of the pendency of the same cause
before the Apex Court, the proceedings in the instant matter and the
other matters alike were stayed.
It is brought to our notice by learned Additional Advocate
General that the Supreme Court has already decided the writ
petition along with several other transferred cases including the
Transferred Case (Civil) No.43/2016 (Federation of Indian Mineral
Industries & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr.) on 13.10.2017.
A photstat copy of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the
case aforesaid too is placed on record.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners do
not dispute the fact brought to our notice by learned Additional
Advocate General.
On examination of record, we are also satisfied that the
cause under adjudication in these petitions for writ is no more res
integra in light of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Federation of Indian Mineral Industries & Ors. Vs.
Union of India & Anr. (supra). Accordingly, these petitions for writ
are disposed of in terms of the judgment given by the Apex Court in
the case aforesaid."
[2023/RJJD/014882] (3 of 3) [CW-8789/2016]
3. On such joint submission made before this Court and upon
perusal of record, this Court finds that the said judgment squarely
applies to the fatual matrix of the present case.
4. In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by
the petitioner is disposed of in terms of the aforequoted
judgment in the case of Federation of Mining Association of
Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra).
5. The stay application as well as all pending applications also
stands disposed of accordingly.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
40-Sanjay/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
