Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ajay Singh Vs. State and anr

Ajay Singh vs State and anr

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Jodhpur Decided Feb 14, 2014
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1128572

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ajay Singh

Respondent

State and anr

Excerpt

.....it is noticed that the very same notification dated 03.04.2013 was under challenge in a batch of petitions led by db cwp no.4241/2013: federation of sand stone mining industries association & ors.versus state of rajasthan & ors.wherein, a co.d.b.civil writ petition no.10207/2013 ajay singh vs state of rajasthan & anr. 2 ordinate bench in its order dated 31.07.2013 has held the amendment made in sub-rule (10) of rule 4 and sub-rule (3) of rule 7 of the rules of 1986 to be illegal to the extent it provided for rejection of pending applications. the co-ordinate bench has, inter alia, held as under: “therefore, impugned amendment dated 03.04.2013 made in sub-rule (10) of rule 4 and rule 7(3) of the rules of 1986 are hereby declared illegal to the extent of rejection of the pending applications and it is directed that all the pending applications filed upto 27.01.2011 shall be decided in accordance with law prevailing prior to issuance of impugned notification dated 03.04.2013........”. the position aforesaid and the relevant observations as made in the aforesaid order dated 31.07.2013 directly apply to the present case too. the matter being concluded so far this court is concerned by the aforesaid order dated 31.07.2013, it appears appropriate and in the interest of justice that this matter be also disposed of in the same terms.accordingly, this petition stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order dated 31.07.2013 as passed in the batch of petitions led by db cwp no.4241/2013. (banwari lal sharma),j. (dinesh maheshwari),j. sudhir

Full Judgment

D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10207/2013 Ajay Singh vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.

1 2 D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10207/2013 Ajay Singh vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.

DATE OF ORDER

: 14th February 2014 HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr.Sanjay Mathur for the petitioner.

Dr.P.S.Bhati AAG for the respondents.

<><><> The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that steps have been taken for removing of the defect No.3.

Other defects are taken note of and are ignored.

Issue notice.

The learned AAG Dr.

P.S.Bhati appears for the respondents.

Having regard to the circumstances, the matter has been heard and considered finally at this stage itself.

In this writ petition, essentially the petitioner has put to question the Notification dated 03.04.2013 as issued by the State Government bringing out amendment in the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 ('the Rules of 1986') particularly to the extent it was sought to be applied on the pending applications for grant of mining lease/licence.

It is noticed that the very same Notification dated 03.04.2013 was under challenge in a batch of petitions led by DB CWP No.4241/2013: Federation of Sand Stone Mining Industries Association & ORS.versus State of Rajasthan & ORS.wherein, a Co.D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10207/2013 Ajay Singh vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.

2 ordinate Bench in its order dated 31.07.2013 has held the amendment made in sub-rule (10) of Rule 4 and sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1986 to be illegal to the extent it provided for rejection of pending applications.

The co-ordinate Bench has, inter alia, held as under: “Therefore, impugned amendment dated 03.04.2013 made in sub-rule (10) of Rule 4 and Rule 7(3) of the Rules of 1986 are hereby declared illegal to the extent of rejection of the pending applications and it is directed that all the pending applications filed upto 27.01.2011 shall be decided in accordance with law prevailing prior to issuance of impugned notification dated 03.04.2013........”

.

The position aforesaid and the relevant observations as made in the aforesaid order dated 31.07.2013 directly apply to the present case too.

The matter being concluded so far this Court is concerned by the aforesaid order dated 31.07.2013, it appears appropriate and in the interest of justice that this matter be also disposed of in the same terMs.Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order dated 31.07.2013 as passed in the batch of petitions led by DB CWP No.4241/2013.

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J.

(DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.

sudhir

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial