1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2935/2008 (Smt. Narayani Devi Vs. State of Raj. Ors.) Date of order : 18.9.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. D.D. Thanvi, for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The main grievance of the petitioner is that she is having her crusher at Khasra No.168 and now a No Objection Certificate has been issued by the District Collector, Churu, which is in contravention of the notification issued by the State Government Annexure-5 whereby it is specifically directed by the State Government that Collector shall issue No Objection Certificate after consultation with the Panchayat and after getting consultation from the Panchayat, if Panchayat is not agreed then No Objection Certificate will not be issued. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per his knowledge, the Panchayat 2 has refused to grant No Objection Certificate, therefore, the Collector has committed an error while granting N.O.C. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner herself is pursuing her business upon her land situated at Khasra No.168 and her crusher is situated upon the land and if on the basis of the sanction issued by the Collector, the respondent No.5 will operate his mine, then certainly it will affect the business as well as the safety of the petitioner. In my opinion, it is nowhere disputed that the District Collector is not competent to issue NOC. The only assertion of the petitioner is that while issuing NOC, the District Collector has flouted the notification issued by the State Government, so also the regulation Nos. 109 (1) and 164 (1) (b) of Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961, therefore, the mining lease granted in favour of the respondent No.5 by the District Collector is illegal but this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable and first of all the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the license issued by the Mining Department in favour of the respondent No.5 on the basis of the NOC issued by the District Collector. The petitioner herself is pursuing business but objecting the business of another person on the ground that it will affect her safety. In my opinion, the District Collector is competent enough and he has jurisdiction to decide the matter of grant of NOC in 3 accordance with the provisions of law. It is also expected that all authorities of administration will act in fair manner and will follow the rules and regulation made by the State Government but at the same time, the petitioner who herself is pursuing business adjoining to the mining lease allotted to the respondent No.5 cannot object anything and cannot take shelter of the notification issued by the State Government while saying that the District Collector has committed an error while issuing NOC to respondent No.5. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the action of the District Collector, Churu. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun