- (1.) THIS petition has been filed with the prayer that lease allotment order dated 21-6-2011 (whereby a mining lease for the mineral masonry stone in an area of one hectare situated in village Manpur Doongari, Tehsil Chaksu District Sikar has been granted to respondent No.4 Nand Kishore Jat on the basis of his preferential right under Section 7 of MMCR 1986) be quashed and set aside.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he is a Trustee and Secretary of temple of Shri Shiv Gorakh Trust Shiv Doongari, Chaksu. It is submitted that the ancient temple of Shiv Gorak is situated atop the Shiv Doongari Chaksu and respondent No.4 Nand Kishore Jat got a lease allotment order in his favour (ML No.170/1993) for excavation of mineral masonry in an area of one hectare at Manpur Doongari, Tehsil Chaksu. It has been submitted that in the event mining activities were to be carried out on the leased land the temple built on top of the hill would be endangered. It is therefore prayed that the grant of mining lease to respondent No.4 under the order dated 21-6-2011 be thus restrained by the court. In reply to writ petition respondent No.4 has submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file writ petition as he has no legal or fundamental right to oppose the grant of mining lease, nor has been able to make out a case of any statutory violation. It has been submitted that the petitioner has suppressed material facts from this court, inasmuch as it was incumbent upon the petitioner seeking to invoke extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this court to disclose the correct facts, that since as early as 1983 mining lease on the same area had been granted to Shiv Doongari Shramik Theka Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Chaksu. It is submitted that the first renewal of the mining lease was granted by order of Mining Engineer Jaipur on 24-4-1995 commencing 16-9-1993 for a period of 20 years. But, since the mining lease holder committed violation of the terms and conditions of the MMCR 1986, the lease was cancelled on 28-6-2008 under the hand of Mining Engineer Jaipur. Subsequently the Mining Engineer declared the area free for grant of mining lease under Rule 59 of the MMCR 1986 and issued notification inviting applications for this area, which notification was published in daily news paper Jaipur Edition Rajasthan Patrika dated 15-9-2010. It is submitted that in pursuance to the advertisement the respondent No.4 along with 14 others applied for grant of mining lease. The Mining Engineer found the respondent No.4 entitled for the grant of mining lease in terms of his priority in accordance with Rule 7 of MMCR 1986. It is submitted that the objection with regard to inherent risk to the ancient temple from mining activities in the area, as set up by the petitioner is farcical and solely with the intent of pressurising the respondent No.4 to enter into some beneficial arrangement with the petitioner for the area in issue has been recorded in revenue records as mining area, and was so operated by the earlier leasees for decades without any objection. It has been further submitted that as per the demarcation report filed by the petitioner himself as annexure-3 to the petition, the temple is at a distance of 102 meters from the outer line of the mining area in issue and fully compliance with Rule 18 (26) of MMCR 1986. It has been further submitted that the route of the temple is distinct and separate from the route to the mining area and while the mining area is on a downward slope the temple is on the other end i.e. on the top of the hill. It has been further submitted that subsequent to the grant of mining lease to respondent No.4, the lease holder will have to seek separate permission for carrying out blasting from the Mining Safety Department under Metalliferous Mining Regulations 1961, whereupon Mining Safety department will undertake requisite scientific evaluation to ensure over all safety and it is not within the province or competence to agitate issues of safety of mining operations on his own ipse dixit. Counsel for respondent No.4 has further submitted that the averments with regard to objections of inhabitants of the area as set up by the petitioner are/is palpably false, as the Gram Panchayat Kathawala and the Forest Department have issued no objection certificates to the grant of mining lease to respondent No.4. It is reiterated emphatically that the area in issue has been recorded in revenue records as mining area and the entire petition is a charade misusing easy access to this court.
(3.) IN the aforesaid circumstances, it has been submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed for suppression of material facts, apart from the petitioner having no locus standi to lay a writ petition against the grant of mining lease to respondent No.4. Mr. Zakir Hussain has filed reply to writ petition on behalf of the State on the same facts and lines as has been filed by respondent No.4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on record of writ petition. ;