Ajit Singh, J. - (1.) This intra Court appeal is directed against the order dt. 10.01.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has allowed respondent's S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 219/2007. Respondent, a young unmarried girl without disclosing the name of her father, applied in a prescribed form for grant of mining lease over a land measuring 9997.1 square meters situated near village Khatehpura, Distt. Jhunjhunu. The name of father Harlal Singh was not mentioned by the respondent because he was working as mining surveyor in the mining department of State Government. And the mining engineer sanctioned the mining lease vide order dt. 28.06.2001 on certain terms and conditions. The mineral sought to be mined was masonry stone. The mining engineer then forwarded the case to the District Collector, Jhunjhunu for grant of No Objection Certificate. There was a condition in the sanction order which stated that if the Collector failed to send his No Objection Certificate within 30 days, it will be deemed to have been granted. For some reason or the other, no order on No Objection Certificate was passed by the District Collector within the stipulated period of 30 days. The District Collector however, vide communication dt. 04.01.2002 refused to grant No Objection Certificate on the ground that proposed area of mining lease was near to very sensitive religious Mazar, a senior secondary school and also to a pond. In the result, no mining agreement was signed between respondent and the State Government.
(2.) Aggrieved respondent first preferred appeal and thereafter, revision before the concerned authorities but without any success. Undeterred, respondent filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 219/2007 which the learned Single Judge by the impugned order has allowed. The learned Single Judge has held that since the Collector did not pass any order on No Objection Certificate within 30 days, the same was deemed to have been granted in favour of the respondent and if the Collector, later decided to refuse No Objection Certificate, he should have given an opportunity of hearing to the respondent. The learned Single Judge has also held that Collector could not refuse No Objection Certificate merely because proposed mining area was near to Mazar, school and pond. On these findings, the learned Single Judge has directed the State to execute mining lease in favour of respondent. It is in this background, the appellants -State of Rajasthan has filed the present appeal.
(3.) The application (Annexure/1), for mining lease of respondent clearly reveals that she suppressed the name of her father Harlal Singh who was posted as mining surveyor. At the time of application, respondent was unmarried and aged about 20 years. She, therefore, could not have operated the mines herself. An inspection report (Annexure -A/5) reveals that a complaint by general public was made against Harlal Singh alleging that he by misusing his position in the mining department has managed to get the mining lease sanctioned in favour of his daughter (respondent). The fact that respondent is daughter of Harlal Singh and he was posted in the mining department has not been denied by her. There is also no material to show that case of respondent for No Objection Certificate was actually placed before the Collector within 30 days from the date of sanction order. The respondent apparently intended to take undue advantage of deeming clause regarding No Objection Certificate. The area of land for which mining was sought is near to Mazar, school and permanent pond. It is clear that in fact Harlal Singh who was posted as mining surveyor wanted mining lease for himself which; was not permissible. He, therefore, used the name of his daughter (respondent) for wrongful gain. This is apparently a case of blatant misuse of office and nepotism which cannot be permitted. In the result, we set aside the order passed by the learned Single and allow the appeal.;