Skip to content


Smt. Kusum Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCommercial
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2607 of 1974 and 864 of 1976
Judge
Reported in1977WLN(UC)51
AppellantSmt. Kusum Kumari
RespondentState of Rajasthan and ors.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
constitution of india - article 226(3) and rajasthan minor mineral concession rules. 1960 rule 43 licence for soap stone--appeal lies against order of director--held, writ is not maintainable.;article 226 of the constitution interdicts that no petition for the rederess of any injury referred to in sub-clause (b) or sub-clause (c) of clause (1) shall be entertained if any other remedy for such rederess is provided by or under any other law for the time being in force. that being so, the writ petitions are, therefore, not maintainable and have abated under article 226(3) read with section 58(2) of the constitution (forty second amendment) act, 1976.;writs dismissed - .....hectacres in village danti kheda, tehsil aspur, dungarpur. by letter dated 17-11-1970, the state government intimated the petitioner that application for prospecting licence, was rejected inasmuch as the area in question had been reserved for investigation by the geological survey of india for lead and zinc. this was by virtue of the notification dated 11.9.1969, issued by the stale government in that behalf, which was published in the rajasthan rajpatra dated 9.4.1970, being aggrieved, the petitioner went in revision to the central government tinder rule 54 of the mineral concession rules, 1960.3. by government of india, ministry of steel and mines, department of mines, letter dated 28.8.1972, the state government was directed to grant prospecting licence to the petitioner in.....
Judgment:

A.P. Sen, Actg. C.J.

1. These two writ petitions by Smt. Kusum Kumari Nalwaya, relate to the grant of prospecting licence for soap stone under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.

2. It appears that the petitioner had on 19.11.69 made an application for grant of a prospecting licence for soap stone over an area of 4266.666 acres or 1726.676 hectacres in village Danti Kheda, Tehsil Aspur, Dungarpur. By letter dated 17-11-1970, the State Government intimated the petitioner that application for prospecting licence, was rejected inasmuch as the area in question had been reserved for investigation by the Geological Survey of India for lead and zinc. This was by virtue of the notification dated 11.9.1969, issued by the Stale Government in that behalf, which was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 9.4.1970, Being aggrieved, the petitioner went in revision to the Central Government tinder Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.

3. By Government of India, Ministry of Steel and Mines, Department of Mines, letter dated 28.8.1972, the State Government was directed to grant prospecting licence to the petitioner in respect of an area 121.60 acres. That was because during the hearing of the revision it transpired that the area falling in the reserved block did not extend over the entire area applied for Pursuant there to, the petitioner by her letter dated 11.12.1972 applied to the State Government to grant her a prospecting licence to the extent, of 121.60 acres. The Stale Government by its order dated 13.12.1973 accordingly issued a prospecting licence in favour of the petitioner relating to 121.60 acres. Meanwhile, the State Government by its order dated 20 6.1973 appears to have granted a prospecting licence to respondent No. 4 Jagdish Chandra Agrawal in respect of an area of 347 hectacres.

4. The petitioner, if she was aggrieved by the grant of a prospecting licence in favour of respondent No. 4 by the Director of Mines and Geology Rajasthan, had the remedy of an appeal to the State Government under Rule 43 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1960. But the petitioner instead of pursuing the remedy of an appeal, has straight away filed this writ petition.

5. During the pendency of these proceedings, Article 226(3), as inserted by the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976, has come into force with effect from 1.2-1977, i.e., the appointed day. Section 58(2) of the Act provides that in particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of Sub-section (1), every pending petition before a High Court which would not have been admitted under the provisions of Articles 226 as substituted by Section 38 of the Act, shall abate.

6. Article 226 of the Constitution interdicts that no petition for the rederss of any injury referred to in Sub-clause (b) or Sub-clause (c) of Clause (1) shall be entertained if any other remedy for such redress is provided by or under any other law for the time being in force. That being so, the writ petitioners are, therefore, not maintainable and have abated under Article 226(3) reae with Section 58(2) of the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976.

7. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed as having abated. There shall be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //