CW/5735/2004 of GOVIND PRASAD Vs STATE and ORS. on 20 December 2004

Facts

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANAT JODHPUR.

...

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5735/2004

Govind Prasad Somani vs. State of Rajasthan and others....

Date : 20.12.2004

HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.

Mr. J.P. Chhangani, for the petitioner.

- - - - -

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

It appears from the facts of the case that thepetitioner’s application for renewal of mining leasewas rejected by the order dated 17.1.1992 againstwhich the petitioner preferred revision petitionbefore the Union of India which was allowed vide orderdated 1.7.1994 and the matter was remanded back to thelower authority for deciding whether the land inquestion is falling in the forest area or not ? Afterremand, the petitioner was directed by the lowerauthority to bring no-objection certificate from theforest department. However, the forest department bytheir letter dated 16.12.1994 informed the concernedauthority that the land was falling in the forestarea, therefore, the petitioner’s application forrenewal of mining lease was rejected earlier and thereis no change in the position, meaning thereby, the land is falling in the forest area. The petitioner’sapplication for renewal of mining lease was againrejected vide order dated 26.3.1996. The petitioneragain preferred a revision petition before the Unionof India which was decided vide order dated 29.8.2001and the matter was again remanded back to the lowerauthority.

It appears from the impugned order dated24.9.2004, which was passed after remand order dated29.8.2001, that the authorities demanded no-objectioncertificate of the Forest Department and the burdenwas placed upon the petitioner to bring the no-objection certificate. The petitioner failed toproduce the no-objection certificate and, therefore,again the petitioner’s application for renewal ofmining lease was rejected.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner,the petitioner was holding license from the samedepartment since 1987 and it was renewed time to timebut one fine morning, the respondent decided not torenew the license simply on the ground that the landis falling in the forest area. The respondent cannottake such a contradictory stand. It is also submittedthat the respondent demanded the no-objectioncertificate from the forest department who is thecontesting authority against the petitioner’s claimfor renewal of mining lease. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the State should have heldthe enquiry about the fact whether the land inquestion is falling in the forest area or not insteadof directing the petitioner to produce the no-objection certificate from that department againstwhich the petitioner’s claim is under consideration.In that view of the matter, the order dated 24.9.2004appears to be absolutely illegal and in fact, theState has not proceeded to decide the issue in thematter and which is whether the land is falling in theforest area or not ? And for that purpose, the no-objection certificate of the forest department may bea piece of evidence, if produced by the petitioner butin case the rival claimant – forest department refusesto give no-objection certificate, that does not meanthat the petitioner lost his right to prove the factthat the land is not a forest land. For that purpose,the State should have held an enquiry before rejectingthe petitioner’s application for renewal of mininglease.

Since the matter was considered by the revisionalauthority and the matter was remanded by therevisional authority vide order dated 29.8.2001(Annex.12), therefore, all these questions should havebeen raised before the same authority who remanded thematter back to the State Government for considerationby filing revision petition against the order dated24.9.2004 (Annex.15) so that the revisional authority would have made it clear to the State Government howto proceed.

In view of the fact that the revision petition ismaintainable against the order dated 24.9.2004(Annex.15) passed by the State, therefore, this writpetition cannot be entertained and it will not be justand proper to entertain the writ petition and thepetitioner is left free to challenge the impugnedorder dated 24.9.2004 before the appropriate authorityby filing a revision petition.

(PRAKASH TATIA), J.

S.Phophaliya