SOHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. J.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners claim themselves to be the inhabitants of Village Lakhina, Gram Panchayat, Suhawa, Tehsil Beawar in the District of Ajmer. They have stated that the respondents No. 4 & 5 have issued a mining lease bearing ML No. 222/08 on 28.8.2012 in favour of Shri Salig Ram Singh S/o Shri Mahendra Narayan Singh for mineral quartz feldspar near Village Ratanpura, Tehsil Beawar, District Ajmer. According to the petitioners, prior to the issuance of the lease, the concerned official respondents did neither inspect the site nor did comply with the requirements of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. They have inter alia stated as well that out of the land covered by Khasra No. 521 of Village Lakhina, on which the mining operation has thus been permitted, 1 bigha is reserved for abadi, and that, the villagers have submitted application(s) to the jurisdictional gram Panchayat for issuance of patta in their favour. It has been stated as well that adjacent to the lease area, there are houses of some villagers. That a school is located also near the mining area, has been stated. The petitioners have averred that as inspite of several representations, no action has been taken by the concerned authorities, they are before this Court seeking an appropriate writ for cancellation of the aforementioned mining lease. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued in reiteration of the above.

(2.) WE have duly considered the facts narrated and the arguments advanced.

(3.) THE instant petition has been projected to espouse a public cause and is expected to be entertained as a public interest litigation. It is certainly a very responsible and onerous duty of the petitioners to ensure that the petition is self contained and fully equipped, as mandated in law. It cannot be gainsaid that having regard to the prayer for cancellation of the mining lease of Shri Salig Ram Singh, he is a necessary party and no effective order can be passed in his absence. According to us, the approach of the petitioners in filing this petition has been a casual one, which cannot be approved. The petition is thus liable to be rejected on the ground of non -Impleadment of a necessary party, which we accordingly do. Resultantly, the petition stands dismissed.