1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER (1) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1613/2001 Kailash Narayan Versus The State of Rajasthan and others (2) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1540/2001 Daulal Versus The State of Rajasthan and others DATE OF ORDER --- April 19, 2010 PRESENT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.Samit Bishnoi, for the petitioner Mr.Zakir Hussain, Dy.Govt.Counsel Mr.V.S.Gujar, for the respondent BY THE COURT (1) By these two writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 29.3.2001 passed by the Dy. Secretary to Govt. Mines Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur with the further prayer for revival of the order dated 3.4.1998 and dismissal of the revision filed by the respondent No.3. (2) On 02.4.2010, although Mr.Bharat Vyas stated that the controversy involved in the present writ petitions is covered by the judgment of this Court, dated 02.9.2008 passed in CWP No.1537/2001 Basanti Devi V.State and others and CWP No.1538/2001 Jagdish V. State and others but special appeals have been filed against the order dated 2.9.2008 wherein also, the objection of maintainability of the special appeal against the judgment passed by the Single Bench under Article 2 227 of the Constitution of India has been raised. Therefore, two weeks' time was granted to the respondents to place the latest position on record. (3) Two more writ petitions of identical nature – CWP No.686/2006 Smt.Yashoda Devi V. State and others and CWP No.1539/2001 Jugal Kishore V. State and others, were also decided by the aforesaid judgment dated 2.9.2008 of this Court. Against the judgment dated 02.9.2008, special appeals were filed. (4) The order dated 2.9.2008 was passed while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29.3.2001 passed by the quasi judicial authority which is having the status of Tribunal. (5) Counsel for the respondent stated at the Bar that the principal seat of this Court at Jodhpur has held that the special appeal against the order passed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. (6) As regards the present controversy, there was no need of re-delineating the area in question and the same was to be allotted on the basis of priority as per pre-delineation of the plot before coming into force of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under: “I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case and considered the rival submissions made by the parties. I am of the view that there was no need of any re- delineating the area in question and the same was to be 3 allotted on the basis of the priority as per pre-delineation of the plot before coming into force of the Rules of 1986. I find no error in the judgment of the Deputy Secretary, therefore, all these writ petitions are dismissed. However, I direct the respondent Mining Engineer, Jodhpur to decide the priority as per the judgment of the Deputy Secretary within a period of one month from today, after hearing both the parties, till then the status quo, as it exists today, shall be maintained.” (7) The controversy involved in both the present writ petitions is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment dated 02.9.2008 in Smt.Yashoda Devi V. State and others. Therefore, both the present writ petitions are also dismissed with the direction given in the judgment dated 02.9.2008 and the respondents are directed to act accordingly. (Prem Shanker Asopa) J. गोpa ल