Smt. Jyoti Paliwal vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

In the instant appeal, the appellant has laid challenge to the order dated 20.7.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the petitioner's writ petition had been dismissed, in view of the dismissal of her earlier writ petition (SBCWP No.3276/2004), which was filed for the same cause and grounds.

Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the petitioner's earlier writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 1.8.2011, but a liberty to avail appropriate remedy to challenge the orders dated 17.5.2005 and 17.3.2008 was granted. It was in the light of the liberty so granted by the Court in her earlier writ petition, the petitioner has again filed the subject writ petition, clarified learned counsel for the appellant. Having pointed out the grant of liberty in the earlier order, Mr. Acharaya contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in not entering into the merit of the writ petition and non-suiting the petitioner only on the ground of the earlier order dated 1.8.2001. With these submissions, he contended that the order of the learned Single Judge impugned in the present appeal passed on 20.7.2012, deserves to be set aside and her writ petition deserves to be considered on its merit.

Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, at the outset submitted that though a liberty had been granted by this Court while rejecting the petitioner's earlier writ petition (SBCWP No.3276/2004), but the same was stringed with a stipulation "subject to just objections available to the respondents"; that being the position, the learned Single Judge was justified in refusing to entertain appellant's writ petition, finding it to be barred by the principle of res-judicata.

Without prejudice to his above referred submission, learned AAG submitted that even if the writ petition is heard on its merit, no relief can be granted to the appellant - petitioner in view of the changed position of law. He invited attention of this Court towards Rule 5 and 89 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2017), which provide that all pending applications shall stand rejected, within six months of coming into force of the Rules of 2017. Advancing his argument further, Mr. Shah submitted that even if appellant's writ petition is considered on merit and allowed, she will not be able to get mining lease, as Rule 89 of the Rules of 2017 would come in her way in getting allotment of the mine and her application shall stand rejected by operation of law.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error of law in rejecting appellant's writ petition, as her earlier writ petition for the same cause had been dismissed.

It is true that while rejecting the appellant's earlier writ petition on 1.8.2011, this Court had granted liberty to the appellant to take appropriate remedies against the orders dated 17.5.2005 and 17.3.2008; nevertheless, the issue of its maintainability was kept open. Apart from the reasons for which the learned Single Judge had dismissed the appellant's writ petition vide impugned order, we find that subject writ petition filed in the year 2011, lying challenge to orders dated 17.5.2005 and 17.3.2008, was highly belated. Indisputably, during the pendency of the earlier writ petition (SBCWP No.3276/2004), the orders dated 17.5.2005 and 17.3.2008 came to be passed, which remained unassailed. A challenge to these orders has firstly been brought by the appellant, by way of the writ petition No.12320/2011 and no effort was made, even to amend the earlier writ petition.

Be that as it may, we accept the submission of the learned AAG that no relief can be granted to the appellant, in view of the promulgation of the Rules of 2017, particularly in the face of Rules 5 and 89 thereof.

That being the position, we neither find any reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 20.7.2012, nor do we find any reason to continue with the present special appeal.

The special appeal is, therefore, dismissed.