BALURAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the legality of order dated 27.2.19 passed by the Joint Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan, is questioned, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner under Rule 47 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 ('the Rules of 1986'), assailing the order dated 13.8.10 issued by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, sanctioning the mining lease of the mining area comprising Mine No.580, Sodhon Ki Dhani in favour of the third respondent Pradeep Solanki, has been dismissed. The petitioner has also questioned the legality of order dated 31.8.87 issued by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner's father Lakharam for grant of mining lease .

(2.) The facts relevant are that pursuant to notification dated 30.11.83 issued by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, for grant of mining lease of quarry no.526 to 615, each comprising the area 60 x 30 sq. meter, the petitioner's father Lakharam alongwith 27 other applicants made application for allotment of quarry no.580. On account of injunction granted by the Revenue Court in favour of one Shri Narpat Singh, who claimed to be in possession of the land, the consideration of the application remained pending. In the meantime, the State Government framed the Rules of 1986, which came into force w.e.f. 4.3.86, wherein the provision was made for allotment of the mines by way of grant of quarry license. On 19.6.86, a notification was published by the respondent in the daily newspaper whereby the applicants who had applied for allotment of the mines pursuant to the aforesaid notification were extended an opportunity to make fresh application in the form prescribed and make payment of difference of application fee within the stipulated time. The applicants including the father of the petitioner did not submit the requisite form as directed. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.8.87 issued by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, all the applications pending for grant of mining lease of Mine No.580 were rejected. The legality of the order passed as aforesaid, was not questioned by the petitioner's father by availing appropriate remedy and the same attained finality.

(3.) Later, the respondent no.3-Shri Pradeep Solanki made an application on 18.12.92 for grant of quarry license of Mine No.580, which stood rejected vide order dated 12.1.93. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent no.3 preferred a revision petition before the revisional authority, which stood dismissed vide order dated 11.1.95, with the direction to classify the mining area category wise. Subsequently, vide order dated 3.4.98, the mining area in question was allotted to one Shri Daulal. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent no.3-Pradeep Solanki and four others preferred revision petition before the revisional authority, which was allowed vide order dated 29.3.01 and the order sanctioning the allotment of mining area in question in favour of Shri Daulal was set aside. The legality of order dated 29.3.01 was challenged by Shri Daulal by way of Writ Petition No.1540/01, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.4.10, whereby while upholding the order dated 29.3.01, the respondents were directed to proceed for allotment of mine after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and determining the priority for allotment. After due consideration, vide order dated 13.8.10, the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, proceeded to allot the mining area in question in favour Shri Pradeep Solanki, the respondent no.3 herein.