ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Vs. GHANSHYAM BALDVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed against the order dated 25.8.1990, passed by learned A.M.J.M. No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by which he dismissed the application submitted under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. by the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Government vide notification dated 27.11.1988, invited applications for allotment of mining licence of marble. Both the parties applied for licence in respect of plot No. 55/B. The Assistant Engineer(Mines) Makrana, vide its order dated 10.3.1989, allowed the application of the plaintiff non-petitioner and ordered for issuance of licence in his favour. Against this order, the petitioner submitted a revision under Sec. 47 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules,1986(for short the 'Rules') before the State Government. He also submitted a stay application. The Deputy Secretary (Mines), on 23.3.1989, stayed the operation of the allotment made by Assistant Engineer (Mines) in favour of plaintiff with regard to plot No. 55/B. The plaintiff instead of filing a revision against the said order before the Central Govt. filed a suit against the Government challenging the order dated 23.3.1989, passed by Dy. Secy.(Mines), Govt. of Rajasthan. An application for temporary injunction was also filed before the said Court and an exparte injunction order was obtained from the said Court. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. before the trial court on the ground that he is a necessary party in the suit and in case he is not impleaded as a defendant in the suit, his rights would be seriously affected. This application of the petitioner was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 25.8.1990. Against this order of the trial court, the petitioner has come before this Court in revision.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It has been argued by Mr. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner that Rule 7 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1987, provides preferential rights of certain applicants for grant of mining licence. Rule 47 of the said Rules provides that any order passed by the Assistant Engineer(Mines) under the rules can be challenged by an aggrieved party by filing a revision before the State Government. The State Government has power to confirm, modify or rescind the order passed by the Assistant Engineer (Mines). He argued that against the order passed by the Assistant Engineer (Mines), he filed a revision under 0. 47 of the aforesaid rules. He argued that on a stay application filed by the petitioner, the State Government stayed the operation of the order passed by the Mining Engineer on 10.3.89, under such circumstances, he is a necessary party in the suit and in case he is not allowed to be impleaded, his rights will be seriously prejudiced.