1 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 153/2009 Jitendra Singh Vs. Mining Engineer Rajsamand & Ors. Date of order : 2nd March 2009 HON'BLE MR. DINESH MAHESHWARI, J. Mr. Pushpendra Singh for the appellant. Mr. R.S.Shekhawat) BY THE COURT: Though listed in Court No. 4, the learned counsel for the appellant has made a mention stating urgency. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the impugned order dated 07.11.2008 as passed by the District Judge, Rajsamand in Misc. Case No. 31/2008, this Court is unable to find any illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity in the order so passed while rejecting the application for temporary injunction as moved by the plaintiff- appellant; and this Court is clearly of opinion that this appeal, being totally bereft of substance, does not merit admission. A comprehension of the fact situation of the case as available from the impugned order makes it clear that on 14.08.2007 the plaintiff-appellant applied for grant of mining lease in relation to the particular delineated plot under his application bearing ML No. 30/2007. However, the appellant 2 was informed by the Mining Department by its letter dated 14.02.2008 that in relation to the same area, the respondent No.5 Smt. Kamlesh Goyal had made an application bearing ML No. 4/2000 alongwith the consent letter from the khatedar of the land in question; and in those circumstances, granting of mining lease in his favour was not possible. The plaintiff-appellant has filed the civil suit seeking declaration against such consent/No Objection Certificate (NOC) as issued in favour of the said applicant Smt. Kamlesh Goyal as being void and ineffective and moved an application for grant of temporary injunction that has been rejected by the impugned order dated 07.11.2008. The learned District Judge, Rajsamand has found that the appellant was not having any consent from the khatedar of the land in question and in the absence of such a consent, no lease could be granted to him as per the Marble Policy of the State Government. Learned Judge has also observed that by the communication dated 14.02.2008, the appellant was only informed of the position that NOC has been produced by the other applicant Smt. Kamlesh Goyal in relation to the area in question and yet, he was extended an opportunity of making submissions within 15 days. Learned District Judge observed that neither the applicant stated anything about ultimate 3 decision on his application dated 14.08.2007 nor was it clarified if the application has been rejected but, in any case, for the plaintiff-appellant having failed to produce NOC from the khatedar, he could not be considered having a prima facie case in his favour. Certain submissions were also made questioning the validity of permission granted in favour of Smt. Kamlesh Goyal to which the learned District Judge observed that such questions could only be determined after evidence. The learned District Judge also observed that neither balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff nor would he suffer irreparable injury. Seeking to question the order aforesaid, it is contended on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that the trustees of the temple in question (the khatedar) have no right to extend any such NOC in favour of the other applicant Smt. Kamlesh Goyal nor such consent/NOC could be said to be in accordance with law and rather the same is hit by the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. Alongwith the memo of appeal a photostat of the alleged Note-sheets in the file of the Mining Department have been produced as Annexure-1 and are sought to be referred to suggest that the Department itself is aware of the position that the land in question being in the khatedari of a deity, no such consent/NOC could be extended 4 so as to create third party rights in deity's land. With reference to such Note-sheets, it is contended that the NOC as granted in favour of the other applicant Smt. Kamlesh Goyal remains illegal and non est. The submissions as made by the learned counsel for the appellant hardly make out a case for interference in appeal against the order refusing grant of temporary injunction; and such submissions as made on behalf of the plaintiff appellant could only be considered as rather self-defeating, so far the case of the appellant is concerned. The objections as suggested by the appellant on the validity of the NOC as granted in favour of the other applicant do not make out any case for grant of any temporary injunction in his favour. The appellant is said to be an applicant seeking grant of mining lease in a particular area, which is said to be comprised of the khatedari land of the deity. Admittedly, the plaintiff-appellant has otherwise no direct existing right in the said land; and any right in relation to the said land, if at all, could be afforded to the appellant only in accordance with law by or on behalf of the said khatedar. The appellant not having any existing legal right on the land in question could least be conceded a right to question the NOC as granted in favour of the other applicant by or on 5 behalf of the said khatedar. However, the matter being sub judice in the civil suit, this Court would not like to make any final comment on this aspect of the matter; and, suffice is to say for the present purpose that learned District Judge has rightly observed that the validity of NOC in favour of the respondent Smt. Kamlesh Goyal is not to be commented without evidence. The plaintiff appellant is found to be lacking in direct existing right in the land in question and merely on the basis of communication dated 14.02.2008, informing him of the relevant facts and yet extending him an opportunity of hearing, the appellant could not have been granted any relief by way of temporary injunction so as to restrain the Mining Department from dealing with and deciding the application made by the respondent No.5. The learned District Judge has also rightly observed that in the given situation, the aspects of balance of convenience and irreparable injury were not in favour of the appellant. The order as passed by the learned District Judge, Rajsamand cannot be said to be arbitrary or against any judicial principle. This miscellaneous appeal, therefore, stands dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. 6 ns.