Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Guru Kripa Plaster vs Union Of India ... on 11 October, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:34375]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4184/2022
M/s Guru Kripa Plaster, Through Its Proprietor Manoj Bishnoi, S/o
Shri Mokha Ram Bishnoi, Aged 35 Years, Add. Igc Khara,
Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Mines,
New Delhi.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. Chief Secretary, State Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. The Joint Secretary (Mines), Mines Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
5. The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Directorate,
Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur.
6. The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,
Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Bohra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, Sr. Advocate &
AAG a/w Mr. Nisant Bapna
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
11/10/2023
1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the
controversy involved in the present writ petition is no more res-
integra, as it is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a
coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dalpat Singh Vs.
Union of India & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:31:23 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:34375] (2 of 3) [CW-4184/2022]
No.5211/2021), decided on 18.07.2023; relevant portion reads
as under :-
"36. Thus, this Court finds that the impugned action and the
decision of the State Government is ad-verbetum the same and
the reason for cancelling the LoIs/PLs of the present
petitioners is the same as was for the petitioner in the case of
M/s. Kamlesh Metacast Pvt. Ltd.
37. The action of the State Government is such that it has
failed to exercise degree of fairness and rather the action of the
State Government is highly discriminatory as on one hand,
when the impugned action of the State has been held to be
invalid and the impugned orders have also been quashed and
set aside by this Court in the case of M/s. Kamlesh Metacast
Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and on the other hand, the plea of the State
Government that the present writ petitions may be dismissed
on the ground of alternative remedy being available, is found
to be ex-facie discriminatory. Thus, in such facts and
circumstances of the case, writ jurisdiction can be exercise and
mere existence of alternative remedy cannot preclude the
petitioners from invoking the writ jurisdiction and it would be
highly arbitrary and unjust to relegate the parties to avail
statutory remedy of revision after such a long battle before this
Court and particularly this one being the second round of
litigation.
38. This Court, vide its judgment rendered in the case of M/s.
Kamlesh Metacast Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has already adjudicated
upon the controversy involved in the present writ petitions and
thus the point of distinguishing the case on the ground that the
present petitioners have not availed the statutory alternative
remedy of revision petition does not sustain. This Court, while
keeping in view that a set of persons on the same pedestal had
been granted relief whereas the present petitioners, while
deviating in a process of seeking separate remedy, have been
deprived of their valuable rights. Both the set of persons, who
were granted LoIs/PLs ought to have been treated in law on an
equal footing. The relief sought is similar to the relief sought in
the case of M/s. Kamlesh Metacast Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the
same thus ought to be granted on the same pedestal. It is
another thing that on determination of merits also, the
petitioners succeed because the statute saves their applications
for LoIs/PLs and the respondents have not been able to point
out any illegality in continuing with the process of rights that
had already accrued to the petitioners and crystalized.
39. Resultantly, the writ petitions are allowed in terms of the
judgment rendered in the case of M/s. Kamlesh Metacast Pvt.
Ltd. (supra). The impugned orders cancelling LoIs/PLs of the
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:31:23 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:34375] (3 of 3) [CW-4184/2022]
petitioners are hereby quashed and set aside and the
respondents are directed to proceed in the matter as per the
directions given in the case of M/s. Kamlesh Metacast Pvt. Ltd.
(supra) in accordance with law.
40. The stay application and all other pending applications, if
any, stand disposed of. "
2. On such submission, the present writ petition is also allowed
in terms of the aforementioned judgment in Dalpat Singh Vs.
Union of India & Ors. (supra). Stay petition stands disposed of
accordingly.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
165-/Jitender//-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
