DBSAW No.575/2004 1 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ::: JUDGMENT
D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.575/2004 Prem Chand Naval versus State of Rajasthan & ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT
: 7th January 2014.
PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE V.K.MATHUR Mr.A.K.Choudhary, for the appellant.
Dr.
P.S.Bhati, AAG with Mr.Rishabh Tayal Mr.M.S.Singhvi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Amit Tatia Mr.Rajesh Joshi ].Mr.D.D.Thanvi ]., for the respondents.
<><><> BY THE COURT:(Per Dinesh Maheshwari),J.
By way of this intra-court appeal, the appellant, who was not a party to the original writ petition (CWP No.5913/2003).seeks to question the order dated 15.07.2004, as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in disposal of the said writ petition.
It is borne out from the record that in this appeal, an application seeking leave to appeal has, of course, been filed by the appellant but then, no order as such granting leave to appeal has been passed, though notices were ordered to be issued to the respondents on 23.08.2004; and this appeal was admitted for consideration on 26.03.2007.
DBSAW No.575/2004 2 The subject matter of this appeal essentially relates to the question of grant of prospecting license and mining lease in respect of mineral Granite under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (‘the Rules of 1986’).The Government had notified the procedure for such a grant in its Granite Policy of the year 1995 and later on in its Granite Policy of the year 2002, notified under the notification dated 02.03.2002.
Without much dilatation on the different submissions sought to be made by the parties in this appeal, suffice would be to notice for the present purpose that the question of interpretation of Clause 16 of the New Granite Policy,i.e., the policy notified on 02.03.2002, as also an alleged clarificatory communication issued by the Dy.
Secretary to the Government (Annex.5).had been the subject matter of consideration in the writ petition filed by the respondent No.7 Western Rajasthan Mining Vikas Sansthan, Jalore, said to be an association of the persons engaged in the business of mining and stating the grievance that the pending applications for grant of mining lease for mineral Granite were sought to be ignored in the name of the Policy in question, though the same were required to be decided in accord with the Policy.
In the order impugned, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to consider the rival submissions; and in essence, while upholding the contentions urged on behalf of the writ-petitioner, has granted the principal relief in the following terMs.“In that view of the matter, the writ petition is required to be disposed of, with the direction, that the applications received by the respondents, prior to commencement of the New Granite Policy, are required to be considered, in accordance with the provisions of clause 16 (1).and by not confining the consideration of such applications only, which are with respect to the “duly notified delineated plots.”
.
DBSAW No.575/2004 3 The present appellant has stated grievance against the order so passed by the learned Single Judge and for that matter, has referred to several of the litigations that were taken up in the past; and has particularly referred to the order passed in DBCWP No.7078/2003 whereby, this Court directed the State Government to delineate and demarcate the plots, which were reserved for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.
The appellant has also referred to the several of the terms of the Granite Policy, 1995 and the Granite Policy, 2002 and has attempted to assail the interpretation put by the learned Single Judge on Clause 16 of the Policy in question.
The appellant has also stated the likely scenario that upon the Government proceeding on the basis of interpretation put by the learned Single Judge, only unviable plots would be left for the reserved categories after such compliance; and has averred as under: “IV.
That as a matter of fact what has been permitted to be done by the learned Single Judge is a case of doing indirectly what cannot be done directly.
The result of complying with the judgment of learned Single Judge will mean that large number of plots will be allotted in disregard of the reservations provided by the two policies and in this process the best of the plots will go to those who have made applications between 7.7.1999 to 4.3.2002 and leaving the rest of the unviable plots for reserved categories.”
.
The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the ultimate result, the persons of reserved category shall stand deprived of their dues under the Policy in question.
However, upon our expressing reservations on the propositions of challenge to the order impugned by the appellant in this appeal instead of taking up substantive proceedings for enforcement of the rights of the referred section/class of persons, the DBSAW No.575/2004 4 learned counsel for the appellant frankly pointed out that on these scores and particularly on the question of the operation of reservation policy, the matter had been before this Court in another litigation and ultimately, the matter was decided by a Division Bench of this Court while disposing of a batch of appeals led by SAW No.623/2009 : Rameshwar Nawal versus State of Rajasthan & Ors on 11.01.2011.
A perusal of the aforesaid order dated 11.01.2011 makes it clear that while this Court has directed the State Government to decide the applications in terms of the Policy, which was required to be implemented, by allotting plots to the persons of SC/ST category in accordance with law but then, so far the allotments already made are concerned, this Court has declined to interfere therewith; and has directed the State Government to carry out the mandate of allotting the land to the members of the SC/ST as reserved under the Policy in future.
The learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to dispute the fundamental position that the present appellant may not possibly be able to maintain a challenge to the allotments already made in favour of the applicants related with CWP No.5913/2003, particularly in view of the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid order dated 11.01.2011.
Though in the fiRs.place, the submissions sought to be made in this appeal against the impugned order dated 05.07.2004 appear to be rather of academic value but in any case, the cause, if any, existing with the appellant to challenge the order dated 05.07.2004 could only be considered as lost with the specific order dated 11.01.2011 as passed by the Division Bench of this Court in SAW No.623/2009.
DBSAW No.575/2004 5 In the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the application for leave to appeal deserves to be declined.
Though it goes without saying but is made clear that we are only declining the leave to the appellant to maintain an appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge and else, the appellant is free to take recouRs.of the appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, in case of any legal grievance remaining yet.
Subject to observations foregoing, the application for leave to appeal is rejected.
Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.
No costs.
(V.K.MATHUR),J.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.
cpgoyal/-