// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4141/2008 Gopal Lal Dhakad S/o Shri Bholu Ram Dhakad Versus State of Rajasthan and Others AND 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4143/2008 Gopal Lal Dhakad S/o Shri Bholu Ram Dhakad Versus State of Rajasthan and Others AND 3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4149/2008 Sulochana Dhakad W/o Shri Prakash Chand Dhakad Versus State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 17.09.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Kamlakar Sharma, Counsel for petitioners in all the three writ petitions Shri M.C. Gupta, Additional Government Counsel for respondents in all the three writ petitions #### By the Court:- The point involved in the aforesaid three writ petitions is one and same, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. The writ petitions are admitted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in S.B. Civil Writ Petition // 2 // No.4141/2008, are that the Divisional Forest Officer, Bundi, vide its letter dated 16th November, 2005 (Annexure-1) granted 'no objection certificate' in favour of the petitioner contending therein that the 'applied mining area' does not fall in the forest area. Thereafter the Superintending Mining Engineering, Mines and Geological Department, Kota Region, vide its order dated 3rd/4th January, 2006 (Annexure-2) sanctioned the mining lease in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner submitted requisite stamps-duty etc. before the Mining Department. It appears that subsequently the Divisional Forest Officer, Bundi, vide its order dated 4th March, 2006 (Annexure-3) withdrew the earlier 'no objection certificate' dated 16th November, 2005, and, on that basis, the Superintending Mining Engineer, Kota, vide its order dated 7th March, 2006 revoked its earlier order dated 3rd/4th January, 2006, whereby mining lease was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the same, a revision petition was preferred by the petitioner before the State Government but the same was dismissed vide order dated 27th November, 2007. Thereafter, the Divisional Forest Officer, Bundi, vide its order dated 1st March, 2008 // 3 // (Annexure-7) restored the 'no objection certificate' dated 16th November, 2005 on certain terms and conditions, as mentioned in the letter. The petitioner thereafter approached the Superintending Mining Engineer, Kota and submitted his representation on 17th March, 2008 that the Divisional Forest Officer has now restored its original 'no objection certificate' dated 16th November, 2005, therefore, the order dated 7th March, 2006 revoking the order dated 3rd January, 2006, may be withdrawn and sanction order of the mining lease dated 3rd/4th January, 2006 may be restored. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Divisional Forest Officer, Bundi, gave its 'no objection' dated 16th November, 2005 to the petitioner to the effect that the 'applied mining area' does not fall in the forest area and, on that basis, a lease was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 3rd/4th January, 2006. Subsequently, 'no objection certificate' was withdrawn by the Forest Department and, on that basis, the sanction order dated 3rd/4th January, 2006, was revoked. However, the Divisional Forest Officer again granted 'no objection' and restored the original 'no // 4 // objection certificate' dated 16th November, 2005 vide its order dated 1st March, 2008 and, in this change circumstance, the petitioner made a representation to the Superintending Mining Engineer to restore the sanction order dated 3rd/4th January, 2006 but the representation of the petitioners was not considered and, in these circumstances, the petitioners were compelled to prefer these writ petitions before this Court. A notice to show cause was given to the respondents and, in response thereto, the respondents No.1 to 3 have filed their written reply to the writ petition wherein they have raised a preliminary objection that a revision petition was preferred by the petitioners which was dismissed. Thereafter the petitioners also filed a civil suit challenging the order dated 7th March, 2006 and 27th November, 2007 and, having failed to get any relief in the civil suit, have now approached to this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that so far as rejection of their revision petition is concerned, undoubtedly the same was rejected but thereafter the Divisional Forest Officer, Bundi has restored its original 'no objection certificate' dated 16th November, 2005, therefore, there was change circumstance // 5 // and the basis, on which the mining lease sanction order was revoked, does not exist; and, in these circumstances, it was a duty of the respondents to restore back their earlier order of sanction of mine dated 3rd/4th January, 2006. So far as filing of civil suit is concerned, he contended that the same was withdrawn by him in view of the change circumstance and no suit is pending at present. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the orders, as referred above, in the light of their submissions and, after considering the same, I find that the Mining Department sanctioned a lease area to the petitioner vide order dated 3rd/4th January, 2006, which was revoked on the basis of letter dated 4th March, 2006, wrote by the Divisional Forest Officer to the effect that they revoked their earlier 'no objection certificate' dated 16th November, 2005. However, the Divisional Forest Officer, Bundi has now restored the 'no objection certificate' dated 16th November, 2005 vide letter dated 1st March, 2008 and, in these circumstances, it is clear that the Forest Department has given 'no objection certificate' to the effect that the 'applied mining area' does not fall within the forest area. However, // 6 // certain terms and conditions have been imposed in the letter dated 1st March, 2008 but position remains that 'no objection certificate' has been given to the effect that 'applied mining area' does not fall within the forest area. In these circumstances, it was a duty of the respondent No.2 Superintending Mining Engineer to consider the representation dated 17th March, 2008 filed by the petitioners for restoration of the order dated 3rd/4th January, 2006 passed earlier whereby mining lease was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners. It appears from the record that the basis, on which the order dated 3rd/4th January, 2006 was withdrawn, does not exist in view of the latest order dated 1st March, 2008 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, and, in these circumstances, it was a duty of the Mining Department to consider the request of the petitioners for restoration of the order dated 3rd/4th January, 2006 and in not doing so they have failed to perform their legal and statutory duty, therefore, a writ of mandamus is liable to be issued directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners for restoration of the earlier order dated 3rd/4th January, 2006. Consequently, all the writ petitions are // 7 // allowed and, by way of writ of mandamus, the respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17th March, 2008 (Annexure-8) regarding restoration of order dated 3rd/4th January, 2006 as soon as possible but not later than two months from the date of receipt of this order. Since three writ petitions have been disposed of by this order, hence Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in the files of connected two other Writ Petitions i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.4143/2008 and 4149/2008. No order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//