AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The Petitioner No. 1 firm was an applicant for a Prospecting Licence (PL) with respect to land in village Maddevra, District Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh. The State Government in the meeting held on 8th May, 2007 rejected the application of the Petitioner firm for the reason of being incomplete and after considering the other applications before it, approved grant of Prospecting Licences to Respondents No5&6.
The Petitioner firm preferred a revision petition to the Central Government and which was dismissed vide order dated 15th March, 2010 impugned in this petition.
Upon enquiry as to why the Petitioners have approached after a long delay of one and a half years, the senior counsel for the Petitioners states that subsequent to the order dated 15th March, 2010, the Central Government has vide letter dated 8th June, 2010 returned the proposal forwarded by the State Government qua Respondent No. 6 to the State Government for re-examination. It is further contended that the Respondent No. 6 has filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4929/2011 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur challenging the order dated 8th June, 2010 of the Central Government returning the proposal qua the Respondent No. 6. It is further stated, though No. document in that regard has been filed, that the proposal qua Respondent No. 5 also has been so returned. It is yet further the case of the Petitioners that the Jabalpur High Court, in the writ petition aforesaid preferred by the Respondent No. 6, has vide order dated 28th March, 2011 restrained the State Government from submitting any fresh proposal to the Central Government.
It is the contention of the senior counsel for the Petitioners that owing to the aforesaid, the matter is now open for the State Government to reconsider the proposals / applications of all the applicants including the Petitioners and thus the Petitioners feel the need to impugn the order dated 15th March, 2010.
The senior counsel for the Petitioners further contends that the order of the Central Government dismissing the revision preferred by the Petitioners for the reason of the re-constitution of the Petitioner firm is palpably illegal and liable to be set aside.
The adjudication of the questions as raised would necessarily entail the inter se rights of the Petitioners on the one hand and the Respondents No. 5&6 on the other hand. It is for this reason only that the Respondents No. 5&6 have been impleaded as Respondents to this petition. However, as aforesaid, the Respondent No. 6 has already approached the High Court at Jabalpur.
In the circumstances, it is felt that the entertaining this writ petition in this Court may result in conflicting decision and it is deemed expedient to avoid the same at the threshold only. The land with respect to which Prospecting Licence is sought being situated at Madhya Pradesh and all the Respondents save the Central Government being also situated at Madhya Pradesh, it is deemed appropriate that the Jabalpur High Court only being already seized of the matter deals with the challenge by the Petitioners also. The Full Bench of this Court in judgment dated 1st August, 2011 in W.P.(C) No. 6570/2010 titled Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. UOI has held that even though the High Court of Delhi may have jurisdiction for the reason of the revisional / appellate authority being situated within the jurisdiction of this Court but this Court can always refuse to exercise the discretion if some other High Court is found to be more suitable to deal with the issues raised.
of course, the senior counsel for the Petitioners has contended that the Petitioners being based at Kolkata find it more convenient to pursue the matter before this Court than before the High Court at Jabalpur. However, considering the location of all the parties, the said fact does not persuade me to entertain this petition before this Court.
The writ petition is therefore disposed of with liberty to the Petitioners to approach the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. No. order as to costs.