SATYANARAYAN AND ETC. Vs. MINING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions identical questions of law and facts are involved. I, therefore, propose to dispose them of together.

(2.) The petitioners viz. Ishwar Lai, Banshi Lal, and II, Balu Ram and Satyanarayan each filed a civil suit in the Court of Addl. Distt. Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh in respect of plots, the description of which is available in each suit. It is necessary to give numbers of the plots of each plaintiff. The plaintiff in each case filed a suit for permanent injunction and also moved an application for temporary injunction with the allegations that he was given a quarry license by the Mining Engineer in respect of the suit plot and which was renewed from year to year. When the plaintiff filed an application for renewal of the above for the period of 1-7-93 to 30-6-94 the same was refused on the ground that City Monitoring Committee constituted by the concerned Collector found that the plot in respect of which the renewal of the license was sought situated at a point within the distance of 45 mtrs. from the river. As such under sub-Rule (26) of Rule 18, the same could not be renewed. The plaintiff alleged that the order refusing the renewal at the behest of the City Monitoring Committee was erroneous factually as well as legally. The above plot does not come within the distance of 45 mtrs. from the river. The Commissioner appointed by this Court also submitted a report in which this factual error was pointed out. Before refusing the renewal, no opportunity was given to the plaintiff to represent his case. According to the Mines and Minerals Concessions Rules 1986, the license could have renewed from year to year for a maximum period of 30 years as per Rule 26 of the rules. Hence, the order rejecting the renewal dated 25-2-94 is illegal and against the rules. The plaintiff made heavy investment in order to operate the quarry and if the defendants are not restrained by temporary injunction the plaintiff may suffer irreparable loss. Since the ground on which the renewal was refused was baseless, the plaintiff has got a prima facie case.

(3.) The defendant contested the application on the ground that the recommendations made by the City Monitoring Committee was correct and on account of geological imbalance and hazards, the legislature by enacting Rule 18(26) did not allow a licence to operate the quarry which is at a distance of 45 mtrs. from the river. It was also averred that the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction inasmuch as the plaintiff-petitioner could have filed an appeal under Rule 43 to the Director, Mines or revision under Rule 4 to the State Government. Since there are special provisions for filing revision or appeal against the order refusing renewal, the plaintiff ought to have pursued the above remedy. By enacting Rules 43 and 47 of the Rules, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been impliedly barred.