Court No. - 30 Civil Misc. Review/Recall Application No.186018 of 2010. IN Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35293 of 2010 Petitioner :- Shrawan Nishad Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Pushpila Bisht Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Gopal Mishra,R.P.S. Chauhan,S.K. Tiwari Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma,J.
Heard Shri Gopal Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent no.6 in
this writ petition and Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner.
This is an application seeking recall/review of the judgment and order dated
15.6.2010 passed by this court disposing of the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the application form
submitted by the petitioner seeking mining lease was incomplete. A proper
no dues certificate duly issued by the competent authority has not been
submitted along with the application form as per Rule 6 (1)(d) of the U.P.
Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963.
As per learned counsel for the applicant/respondent no.6 that in the original
application form submitted before the District Magistrate in column of
profession and business, the petitioner has indicated ‘Krishi’ as his profession
whereas in the application form annexed with the writ petition the profession
has been shown as “Krishi and Baloo Khanan” by making overwriting. In
view of the aforesaid infirmities, the petitioner cannot take any benefit of the
judgment rendered by this court in Ashok Kumar Tripathi’s judgment. It has
further been submitted that the petitioner’s statutory revision is admittedly
pending disposal before the State of U.P., a copy of which, has been annexed
as Annexure-17 to the writ petition. The earlier revision filed by the petitioner
has already been decided by the State Government vide an order dated
5.5.2010 and the principles of res judicate would apply.
Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for the respondent has strongly opposed
the application. She has supported the judgment dated 15.6.2010 and has
reiterated her earlier submissions. According to her, the order dated 3.5.2010
and the chart dated 21.12.2009 deserve to be quashed. In the present facts and
circumstances the Special Secretary, Department of Geology & Mining may
be directed to prepare a preferential chart himself and no reliance can be
placed on the chart dated 21.12.2009, wrongly prepared by Shri P.K. Singh,
Mines Inspector. The petitioner’s application was complete in all respects. No
notice under Rule 6(2) was ever issued to the petitioner pointing out any
defect or infirmity in the application. Infact, the applicant/respondent no.6
was issued the notice under the said provisions on 27.12.2005. A proper no
dues certificate was filed along with the affidavit, copy of which, has been
annexed with the writ petition. In addition to this, the petitioner has filed
residence certificate, solvency certificate, documents relating to having
adequate mining experience. The petitioner has also submitted the certificate
in respect of adequate technical staff for carrying out mining operation.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials
on record.
Both the contesting parties have made submissions pointing out legal
infirmities in each others candidature. Several questions of fact rather
disputed questions of fact have been highlighted before the court for
adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At the time of
disposal of the writ petition the version of respondent no.6 was not available.
This court has taken note that a statutory revision is already pending before
the State Government, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-17 to
the writ petition. Therefore, it would be appropriate that if all these facts may
be brought to the notice of the revisional authority. The parties shall be free to
put-forth their submissions factual and legal before the revisional authority.
In the circumstances of the case, where the candidates are hotly contesting
and asserting their claims, it would be appropriate if the Secretary or Special
Secretary, Govt. of U.P. Department of Geology & Mining may personally
deal with the revision, call for the records, hear the parties, take note of the
rival submissions and then dispose of the revision in accordance with law.
In view of above, the respondent no.1 i.e.Special Secretary, Department of
Mines & Minerals, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow is directed to personally deal
with the revision pending before it as per the observations and directions
made above expeditiously preferably within a period of three weeks from the
date of presentation of certified copy of the order before him. It shall be open
for the parties to put-forth their submissions, facts and law including the
relevant decisions on the subject before the revisional authority, who shall
pass reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.
The review/recall application is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 9.7.2010
pks