CHANCHAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:

(2.) The facts, though have been made copious by none other than the petitioner herself, who has approached various fora in the period of last 22 years, but suffice it to mention that the petitioner had applied for grant of prospecting license in May, 1996 and two prospecting licenses (PL No.8/1996 and PL No.7/1996) came to be issued to her on 15.01.1998 and 27.01.1998 respectively. Whereafter for one reason or the other, the petitioner could not get her land demarcated and, thus, no mining lease could be extended in her favour.

(3.) After numerous representations and litigations, a writ petition came to be filed in the Delhi High Court, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 01.03.2016, interalia requiring the petitioner to file civil suit, in accordance with law. Whereagainst, the petitioner preferred a Letters Patent Appeal, wherein an objection was raised by the respondents' counsel that the writ petition, was not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction and in view thereof, the petitioner sought withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to avail appropriate remedy in a court of competent jurisdiction or before an appropriate authority. Thus, the writ petition as well as the LPA, came to be dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 21.04.2017; relevant portion whereof is being reproduced hereinfra:-