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.

Mohan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Mohan vs State of Rajasthan and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 10, 2002
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/770724

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 High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Civil Writ Petn. No. 6780 of 1992
Subject
Commercial

Case Summary

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

- LABOUR & SERVICESAppointment: [Shiv Kumar Sharma, Ashok Parihar & K.S. Rathore, JJ] Merit list Rajasthan Secondary Education Act (42 of 1957), Section 28 & Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education Rules, Rule 20 - Held, Improved marks obtained by candidate after re-appearing in examination can be considered for dr...

Key legal issue
Commercial
Acts & sections
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 - Sections 15; Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 - Rule 26; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohan

Advocate Sudhir Sharma and; Ummed Singh, Advs.

Respondent

State of Rajasthan and ors.

Advocate R.L. Jangid, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and; Hemant Chaudhary, Adv. for Respondent No. 3

Legal References

Acts
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 - Sections 15; Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 - Rule 26; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226
Reported In
AIR2003Raj197

Excerpt

- labour & servicesappointment: [shiv kumar sharma, ashok parihar & k.s. rathore, jj] merit list rajasthan secondary education act (42 of 1957), section 28 & rajasthan board of secondary education rules, rule 20 - held, improved marks obtained by candidate after re-appearing in examination can be considered for drawing the merit list of candidate for appointment to post of teacher. circular issued by the director of primary & secondary education ousting such candidate from consideration in merit list is illegal and without jurisdiction......section 72(b) of the forest act, 1953 and according to the petitioner, he has apprehension that because of the intervention of the forest department, mines department might not renew his lease and hence this writ petition with the prayer just stated above.3. reply to the writ petition was also filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 on 17-12-1993.4. it may further be stated here that on stay application, an interim stay was granted in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 18-12-1992 and the same was confirmed vide order dated 8-9-1995. thus the stay order is in force.5. in this writ petition, the only prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before taking any action in pursuance of show cause notice dated 21-7-1992 (annexure 3), the petitioner should be heard.6. in my opinion, this prayer appears to be just and reasonable one and therefore, it should be accepted and for which the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has also no objection.for the reasons mentioned above the present writ petition is disposed of in the manner that the petitioner would file reply to the impugned show cause notice dated 21-7-1992 (annexure 3) passed by respondent no. 3 (regional forest officer, gadi) within one month from today and after that, within two months from submission of reply by the petitioner, the regional forest officer, gadi (respondent no. 3) shall pass appropriate order on show cause notice dated 21-7-1992 (annexure 3) in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.the stay order dated 18-12-1992 granted by this court which was confirmed vide order dated 8-9-1995 shall remain in force only for three months from today.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Sunil Kumar Garg, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 16-12-1992 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the show cause notice dated 21-7-1992 (Annexure 3) issued by the Regional Forest Officer, Gadi (Partapur) be quashed.

It arises in the following circumstances :

i) That the petitioner applied for quarry licence in the year 1981 and the same was granted to him on 4-1-1982 and right from that date, every year this quarry licence was renewed according to the provisions contained in Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. A copy of the licence is Annexure 1.

ii) That the petitioner applied for renewal of licence on 23-12-1991 for 1-1-1992 to 31-12-1992 and the same was granted to the petitioner and he was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 275/- for the same which was deposited by him on 23-12-1991.

(iii) The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 21-7-1992 (Annexure 3) issued by Regional Forest Officer, Gadi (respondent No. 3) whereby the petitioner was directed to submit the mining patta, the map of the area along with demarcation line and he was further directed to close the operation of removing the limestone from the Pahari. It was further mentioned in the show cause notice dated 21-7-1992 (Annexure 3} that during survey, it was found that this area comes within the area of forest.

(iv) It is further submitted that the show cause notice dated 21-7-1992 (Annexure 3) was issued by the respondent No. 3 under the powers conferred by Section 72(b) of the Forest Act, 1953 and according to the petitioner, he has apprehension that because of the intervention of the Forest Department, Mines Department might not renew his lease and hence this writ petition with the prayer just stated above.

3. Reply to the writ petition was also filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 17-12-1993.

4. It may further be stated here that on stay application, an interim stay was granted in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 18-12-1992 and the same was confirmed vide order dated 8-9-1995. Thus the stay order is in force.

5. In this writ petition, the only prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before taking any action in pursuance of show cause notice dated 21-7-1992 (Annexure 3), the petitioner should be heard.

6. In my opinion, this prayer appears to be just and reasonable one and therefore, it should be accepted and for which the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has also no objection.

For the reasons mentioned above the present writ petition is disposed of in the manner that the petitioner would file reply to the impugned show cause notice dated 21-7-1992 (Annexure 3) passed by respondent No. 3 (Regional Forest Officer, Gadi) within one month from today and after that, within two months from submission of reply by the petitioner, the Regional Forest Officer, Gadi (respondent No. 3) shall pass appropriate order on show cause notice dated 21-7-1992 (Annexure 3) in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

The stay order dated 18-12-1992 granted by this Court which was confirmed vide order dated 8-9-1995 shall remain in force only for three months from today.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial