- (1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner, Shri Shiv Ram Mali, said to be an applicant seeking grant of quarry license for Quarry No. 69 at village Bhoori Beri, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur, has questioned the order dated 11.08.1997 as passed in revision petition bearing No. 15(19) Khan/Group-2/97 whereby the Deputy Secretary to the Government in its Mining Department proceeded to accept the revision petition filed by Smt. Pappu Devi (the respondent No. 4 herein) and to set aside the order dated 28.10.1996 as passed by the Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur whereby the appeal preferred by the present petitioner bearing number 107/96/Jodhpur was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur for consideration of the application of the present petitioner that had earlier been rejected on 12.07.1996 and license had been granted in favour of the respondent No. 4.
(2.) THE relevant facts and the background aspects, in their feasible chronology, could be noticed as follows: The petitioner Shri Shiv Ram Mali had allegedly made an application seeking quarry license for the aforesaid Quarry No. 69 on 21.12.1995; but another application in relation to the same area was made by Smt. Pappu Devi (the respondent No. 4 herein) on 14.06.1996. The application as made by the petitioner was rejected by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur on 12.07.1996 for being deficient and defective; and on the same date, i.e., 12.07.1996, the Mining Engineer proceeded to accept the application made by the respondent No. 4 and granted quarry license in her favour. Questioning the aforesaid order dated 12.07.1996 whereby his application for grant of quarry licence had been rejected, the petitioner preferred an appeal (No.107/96/Jodhpur) before the Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur. However, the present respondent No.4 was not joined as a party in the said appeal. The petitioner submitted before the Appellate Authority that he was a poor illiterate person; and the alleged deficiencies in his application regarding signatures and address ought to have been pointed out to him by way of registered letter. The petitioner contended that he was not heard before rejection of the application nor was afforded any opportunity to remedy the defects. The petitioner asserted that being the prior applicant, he had the priority for consideration of the application for allotment of the Quarry in question. The learned Appellate Authority accepted the contentions so urged on behalf of the petitioner and observed that rejection of the petitioner's application without an opportunity of hearing to him was not justified. Accordingly, by the order dated 28.10.1996, the Appellate Authority proceeded to set aside the quarry license granted in favour of the respondent No. 4 and remanded the matter to the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur for appropriate proceedings after extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
(3.) THE Mining Engineer, Jodhpur took up the proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid remand order dated 28.10.1996 and after hearing the petitioner and taking note of the fact that he had remedied the defects, proceeded to grant the quarry license in his favour on 14.02.1997. The endorsements on the order dated 14.02.1997 (Annex. 2) make out that the respondent No. 4 Smt. Pappu Devi was also informed about the rejection of her application and she was called upon to deliver the possession of the Quarry in question to the Department.;