DBSAW NO.377/07. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.377/2007. IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4925/1996. Ramjidas Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Judgment:- March 5, 2008. QUORUM HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Vimal Choudhary for the appellant. Shri Harshvardhan Nandvana, Government Counsel. ***** BY THE COURT:- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13/9/2006 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order dated 16/4/1996 (Ann.8 of writ petition) whereby his appeal against the assessment order of royalty passed by Mining Engineer was dismissed by the Deputy Secretary-respondent No.2. Shri Vimal Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the writ petition has been dismissed only on the premise that the appellant made certain concealments while arguing the matter DBSAW NO.377/07. 2 before the court on 22/10/1996 when the court passed an interim-order of stay in his favour. It was argued that the appellant apart from making other arguments had also additionally made an argument that the appeal has been decided by a person who had initiated the enquiry against him. Respondents in their reply clarified this position by submitting that the appellant himself at the outset expressed that he would have no objection if the appeal is heard by Shri Y.C. Gupta and this fact was not disclosed when the writ petition was argued at the motion hearing stage. Learned counsel submitted that appellant had no intention of concealing this fact produced copy of the order of the Additional Director mentioning this fact which was very much part of the record and was submitted by the appellant himself at Annexure-6. It was argued that there was no undue advantage derived by the appellant inasmuch as, from the impugned-order, it would be clear that the entire dues have been deposited by the appellant. Shri Vimal Choudhary also submitted that the appellant does not for the present press his argument that the appeal could not have been decided by Shri Y.C. Gupta, Additional Director because he had initiated the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner and that he would also not press this argument if the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication on merits. Shri Harshvardhan Nandvana, learned DBSAW NO.377/07. 3 Government Counsel argued that when the matter was argued before the learned Single Judge on 22/10/1996, an argument was made on behalf of the appellant that appeal has been decided by a person who had initiated enquiry against him without disclosing the fact that this was put to the appellant by Shri Y.C. Gupta, Additional Director and the appellant did not object to the appeal being heard by him. Learned Single Judge therefore rightly dismissed the writ petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned-order, we find that although the appellant, apart from making argument that the person who had decided the appeal had initiated enquiry proceedings against him, had also made other arguments on merits of the case as is evident from the order dated 22/10/1996. It would have been better if the appellant had made complete disclosure about the fact that he had waived his right to object to the appeal being heard by Shri Y.C. Gupta. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the writ petition has not been decided on merits but has been dismissed on the aforesaid ground. Now, that the appellant has deposited the entire dues, there can be no question for passing interim-order in his favour and furthermore the appellant has since given up the argument that aforesaid Shri Y.C. Gupta, Additional Director having himself initiated the enquiry proceedings against the appellant could not have heard DBSAW NO.377/07. 4 the appeal, we deem it appropriate that matter is decided on merits rather than being dismissed for the reason of concealment of fact as aforesaid. While therefore setting aside the impugned judgment & order dated 13/9/2006, we remand the matter to the learned Single Judge for its decision on merits afresh. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. (NARAYAN ROY), CJ. anil