CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Surendra Pratap Jaiswal vs M/s. Dhaneshwar Stone Company and Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 22 January 2013 · Citation: (2013) 01 RAJ CK 0090

HON’BLE JUDGES
Narendra Kumar Jain, J · Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J
CASE NUMBER
Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1084 of 2011 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 117 of 2011 in Civil Writ Petition No. 10418 of 2010
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 346 words
1.

Heard finally. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 23.02.2011 passed by the single Bench, whereby application filed by appellant to implead him as a party to the writ petition, was rejected, however, he was permitted to intervene in the matter.

2.

Respondent No. 1 M/s. Dhaneshwar Stone Company filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10418/2010 with the following prayer:-

i) Quash and set aside the notification Annexure-4 dated 15.7.2010 to the extent of petitioner and issue mandamus for compliance of the order dated 19.2.2008 passed by the Dy. Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and restore the possession of the mining lease in question.

ii) any other order or direction which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

iii) Cost of the writ petition be awarded in favour of the humble petitioner.

3.

The orders dated 19.02.2008 as well as 15.07.2010, which have been annexed as Annexure-1 and Annexure-4 respectively, to the writ petition, show that both are relating to writ-petitioner and the dispute appears between writ-petitioner as well as the State Government.

4.

Submission of the appellant, who is present in person in the Court, is that the disputed mining area was declared as area free and he applied for allotment of the same, therefore, he is necessary party, however, this fact has not been disputed that the area in question was not allotted to the applicant/appellant.

5.

In these circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was absolutely right in permitting the applicant/appellant to intervene in the matter and his application to implead him as a party to the writ petition has rightly been rejected.

6.

We find no merit in this intra-Court appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

7.

It is left open that in case, there is any independent right to the appellant, then he can agitate the same by way of independent litigation. In view of above, I.A. No. 53028/2012 and D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 9200/2011 also stand disposed off.