1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. :: O R D E R :: S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3688/2007 Shyam Lal Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 04-04-2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr. M.C. Bhoot, for the petitioner. Mr. DLR Vyas, for Mr. B.M. Bohra, for the respondents. Mr. Rishi Vaishnav, for the State. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.5.2007 passed by the Deputy Secretary(Mines) on revision petition filed by the non-petitioner Teeja Devi. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the mine in dispute was originally allotted to Teeja Devi, however it remained unoperational due to a dispute raised by one Khem Raj claiming his khatedari right in the land of mine in dispute. The matter between Khem Raj and Mines Department then finally settled and thereupon the possession of the mine was given. It is contended that the mine in dispute was transferred by Teeja Devi in favour of the petitioner even before the aforesaid settlement and thereby the possession of the land was given to the petitioner. 2 It is otherwise contended that after transfer of the mine, the mineral was excavated by the petitioner alone and it is only a stage when some clearance pertaining to pollution was required to be taken. The non-petitioner Teeja Devi under misimpression, challenged the transfer of the mine to the petitioner. It is contended that perusal of the thumb impression exist on the documents submitted in the writ petition, it becomes clear that whatever has been said by the non-petitioner Teeja Devi is nothing but bundle of false statement of facts and thereby it is prayed that the order dated 9.5.2007 deserves to be set aside as the authority concerned failed to take note of all the relevant facts as well as material placed before it. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the possession of the mine after settlement of the dispute between Mines Department and Khem Raj was handed over to Teeja Devi, thus it is incorrect to say that the mine in dispute was in possession of the petitioner. It is contended that so far as transfer of mine is concerned, the application so moved contains forged thumb impression of the non-petitioner and for that reason, an FIR was lodged and therein the expert report shows that thumb impression on the transfer application is forged one. On that strength, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order dated 9.5.2007 cannot be said 3 to be illegal. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. Since this Court cannot look into disputed question of fact, thus the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner to verify the thumb impression to adjudge as to whether the transfer application is containing thumb impression of non- petitioner Teeja Devi or not, is not an issue which cannot be decided by this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rather an FIR was lodged against the petitioner in regard to forged thumb impression on the transfer application and pursuant to the FIR, expert report was also called and submitted showing thumb impression to be forged. Though the matter is pending consideration before the Court competent to hear the criminal case and it is informed that the matter is now pending for framing of charges, the authority below has passed an order only to the extent that till the things are made clear by the court as to whether the thumb impression on transfer application is of Teeja Devi or not, no one should be allowed to operate the mine. The aforesaid order has been passed looking to the fact that an expert report in that regard is against the petitioner. However, on mere submission of expert report, it cannot be concluded that whatever has been 4 said therein is to be taken as final, inasmuch as the final conclusion in that regard would be drawn by the court where the matter is already pending and as such finding would be recorded by the competent court, till then it cannot be said that either party should be given right of mining, inasmuch as if any of the party is permitted to excavate the minerals during the period when criminal case is pending and necessary finding in regard to the thumb impression on the transfer application is to be drawn, the party succeeding therein would otherwise loose their right of excavation of mineral. Inasmuch as the mineral deposit may be limited to some extent or may be unlimited and in that circumstance, permission to operate mining in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be justified and thereby the order passed by the competent authority does not suffer from any error as both the parties are being restrained to operate mine during intervening period. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, both the parties may try to pursue the matter pending before the court competent to hear the criminal case and if any point of time, a finding is recorded in regard to thumb impression on the transfer application, either party may move an application before the competent authority to allow him to operate the mines. 5 [M.N. BHANDARI],J. Praveen