AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.M. Reis, J.—Heard Shri M. S. Sonak, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Shri C. A. Ferreira, learned Asst. Solicitor General appearing for the Respondent No. 1 and Ms. Sapna Mordekar, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the Learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, waive service.
The above Petition challenges the Order dated 02.02.2010, passed by the Respondent No. 2 and Order dated 31.01.2011, passed by the Respondent No. 1, whereby an application for renewal of the mining lease filed by the Petitioners came to be rejected.
During the course of the hearing of the above Writ Petition, the Learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties do not dispute that in similar circumstance as in the present Petition, this Court whilst disposing of Writ Petition No. 51/2011 by Judgment dated 18.02.2011, set aside the Order passed by the Respondent No. 1 and remanded the matter back to the Respondent No. 1 with a direction to pass a fresh Order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioners therein leaving all the contentions raised by all the parties including the point of limitation open. The Learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties also do not dispute that after the said remand by this Court, the Respondent No. 1 by Order dated 16.08.2011 in Revision Application No. 8/1/2010-RC-II has, inter alia, set aside the Order of the Respondent No. 2 and remanded the matter to the Respondent No. 2 to decide the renewal application afresh after hearing all the parties and keeping all the issues open including the issue of limitation and condonation of delay.
Shri Ferreira, learned Asst. Solicitor General appearing for the Respondent No. 1, does not dispute that the Respondent No. 1 has passed such Order on 16.08.2011. Learned Counsel further states that he will submit to the Orders of this Court in the above Petition.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that the Counsel appearing for the respective parties do not dispute that the facts in the present case are similar to the facts in Writ Petition No. 51/2011 disposed by this Court on 18.02.2011, I find no reason to take any contrary view in the present Appeal. Taking note of the fact that the Respondent No. 1 after remand has remanded back to the Respondent No. 2 keeping all the issues open for re-consideration, I find that, in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate that instead of remanding the matter to Respondent No. 1, the matter be remanded to Respondent No. 2 to decide the renewal application filed by the Petitioners afresh after hearing the concerned parties keeping all the issues raised by the parties including the point for limitation and condonation of delay open. Respondent No. 2 shall proceed to decide the renewal application in the light of the observations made by the Respondent No. 1 whilst passing the Order dated 16.08.2011 in the said Revision Petition as well as the Judgment dated 18.02.2011 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 51/2011.
In view of the above, I pass the following: ORDER
(i) The impugned Orders dated 02.02.2010 and 31.01.2011 at annexure (E) and (H) respectively are quashed and set aside.
(ii) The Respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the application for renewal filed by the Petitioners dated 21.11.2006 afresh in the light of the observations made herein above after hearing all the parties in accordance with law.
(iii) All the contentions raised by the parties including the point for limitation and condonation of delay are left open.
(iv) Rule is disposed of in the above terms.
(v) Petition stands disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs.
Authenticated copy of this Judgment be issued to the parties in accordance with law.