SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have challenged in this petition, the impugned order dated 4. 5. 98 (Annex. M) whereby the Special Officer (Technical) of the State of Rajasthan has withdrawn the permission for grant of lease granted in favour of the petitioners earlier by an order dated 27. 1. 98 (Annex. K) and ordered the petitioners to be dispossessed from the mines in question.
(2.) THIS is a petition of 1998 wherein no interim order was passed but somehow or the other, the petitioners are not dispossessed and continued in possession as stated by learned counsel Mr. Mathur for the petitioners. The submission of Mr. Mathur was that the impugned order at Annex. M was passed without extending an opportunity of hearing. There are certain cases in which principle of natural justice has no application and this one of them. The petitioners are father and son. Before filing this petition, earlier they filed suit which was dismissed and the matter came up before this Court by way of second appeal which was also dismissed. Therefore, they filed writ petition in 1995, the same was also dismissed. Inspite of this, the petitioners managed to get the order from the State Government on 27. 1. 98 (Annex. K) of relaxation in their favour on the condition that they will withdraw all the pending cases. However, it appears that on the letter dated 28. 3. 98 addressed by the Director of Mines, Udaipur, the Special Officer (Technical) of the State of Rajasthan passed an order on 4. 5. 98 (Annex. M) and withdraw the earlier order dated 27. 1. 98 (Annex. K) granting permission to the petitioners and also ordered to take back the possession of mines from the petitioners and report it to the department. From the above, it is clear that though the petitioners failed earlier twice before this Court one in civil proceedings i. e. in second appeal and second in writ petition, they could somehow or the other manage to get the relaxation in their favour by order dated 27. 1. 98 (Annex. K) but it seems that on a letter dated 28. 3. 98 addressed by the Director of Mines, Udaipur, the Special Officer (Technical) of the State of Rajasthan withdraw the earlier order dated 27. 1. 98 (Annex. K) by his order dated 4. 5. 98 (Annex. M ). If the authority had earlier passed wrong order of relaxation in favour of the petitioners even though they lost their cases in Civil Court and right upto this Court in second appeal and in the writ petition, then in my opinion, there was nothing wrong in correcting their mistake by subsequent order dated 4. 5. 98 for which no notice is required to be given. In fact, relaxation made in favour of the petitioners by the earlier order dated 27. 1. 98 (Annex. K) does not confer any right to them to continue with illegal possession of the mines. It may be stated that though the impugned order Annex. M was passed way back on 4. 5. 1998, till today i. e. on 8. 2. 2000 for a period of nearly two years, the petitioners somehow or the other could manage to retain the possession of mines without obtaining any order from this court on their stay petition. In short, they granted stay to themselves. Such persons cannot plead either equity or complain about the violation of principles of natural justice. Their conduct also disentitle them from getting any order from this Court in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) IN view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed. The petitioners are directed to hand over the possession of the mines which they are illegally occupying with them forthwith and in any case not later than 28. 2. 2000. Stay petition is also dismissed. .;