1 D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1054/2008 Jumadeen V/s The State of Rajasthan & ors. 6.4.2009 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Deepak Verma Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.P.Gupta Mr.L.R.Mehta ) Mr.D.D.Thanvi )-for the appellant. M.Ramit Mehta ) Mr.M.C.Bhoot )for the respondents. Mr.Surendra Singh ) With consent, arguments heard. Unsuccessful petitioner of writ petition no.2523/08 decided by learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.9.2008 is before us in this intra court appeal challenging the same on variety of grounds. The appellant had approached the writ court by filing writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 2.4.2008 (Annex.16). Even though the matter has long and chequered history, but we are not required to go into it. Suffice it to say that in earlier round of litigation an order came to be passed in Special Appeal No.210/2008 between the same parties on 14.3.2008. The operative part of the order reads as thus:- “Meanwhile, if the learned Director chooses to decide the representation as directed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order, before deciding the representation the Director shall give opportunity of hearing to the present appellant also to project his version and produce requisite documents.” 2 Now the grievance of the appellant boils down to the fact that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Director of Mines gave complete go bye to the Division Bench order dated 14.3.2008 and without giving an opportunity of hearing or further affording an opportunity to file documents, has passed the impugned order on 2.4.2008. We have carefully gone through the order dated 2.4.2008, which reflects that neither any opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant as contemplated in the order of the Division Bench dated 14.3.2008 nor any opportunity was afforded to the appellant to file documents. This clearly shows that the mandate as commanded by the Division Bench order of this Court has not at all been complied with. Learned Single Judge proceeded on the ground that it was a fit case where appellant should be directed to obtain the necessary succession certificate thereby he could have continued to operate the mining activities which was granted to him some time in the year 1989. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer and contended that the matter is already sub-judice before the competent civil court, as parties have approached for grant of succession certificate and therefore, no interference is required to be made in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In other words, it has been contended that the appeal being devoid of any merit and substance, deserves to be 3 dismissed. We have been taken through various documents filed by the respective parties. After having given our anxious consideration to the whole matter, we are of the opinion that in any case the Director of Mines and Geology was not sitting as an appellate authority over the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 14.3.2008. Whether it was necessary or not, but it was obligatory on his part to have given an opportunity of hearing to the parties and further to have afforded opportunity of filing documents as they may have been advised to do so. The impugned order clearly shows that these two basic directions, which are contained in the earlier order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, have not been adhered to. In the light of this, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 2.4.2008 cannot be allowed to be sustained and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court on 14.3.2008, opportunity of hearing would be afforded to the parties by the Director, Mines and Geology in letter and spirit and only thereafter, reasoned order would be passed. We have also been given to understand that under misconception of law, the appellant has been restrained from operating the mines, which was allotted to him in the year 1989. We are of the opinion that unless respondents are able to obtain succession certificate in their favour, it was 4 neither desirable nor proper to stop the appellant from carrying on mining activities, which he was carrying on since 1989. The appellant, therefore, would be at liberty to move an appropriate application before the Director, Mines and Geology in this regard also. As a result thereof, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is also quashed and set aside. The matter, as directed in the earlier order dated 14.3.2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, stands remitted to the Director, Mines and Geology for consideration in the light of earlier order passed by this Court. However, the Director, Mines and Geology is expected to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and in any case parties will also not seek any undue adjournment in the matter. Since the parties are here, we direct that they would appear before the Director, Mines and Geology on 13.4.2009 to further participate in the matter. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this appeal stands allowed. Parties to bear their respective costs. (N.P.Gupta)J. (Deepak Verma)CJ Parmar