Regional Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Ministry of Steel and Mines, Government of India vs M/s. Hardesh Ores, Mineral Nacional Limitada and State of Goa

F.M. Reis, J

Heard Shri M. Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Shri Rafeeq Dada, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1 in Writ Petition no. 47 of 2012, Shri B. Zaiwalla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1 in Writ Petition no. 48 of 2012 and Shri M. S. Sonak, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.2. In the above Petitions, the Petitioner challenged the Order passed by the learned District Judge, dated 06.08.2011, whereby the application filed by the Petitioners to delete their name from the proceedings before the learned Judge, came to be rejected.

During the course of the hearing of the above Petition, it is not disputed that in the said proceedings an Order was passed by the learned District Judge dated 18.03.2008, whereby the parties including the Petitioners, were directed to maintain status quo in terms of prayer clause (c) of an application filed by the Respondent no.1. The matter is also stated to be ready for final disposal.

Shri Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners raises a grievance to the effect that in view of the said Order, the Petitioners are not in a position to take necessary action in accordance with law which jeopardizes the working of the Petitioners. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Petitioners are not the necessary parties to the proceedings pending before the learned District Judge and, as such, the learned Judge was not justified to refuse the application filed by the Petitioners by the impugned Order.

On the other hand, Shri Rafeeq Dada and Shri Zaiwalla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1 in both the above Petitions, have disputed the contentions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the Order passed by the learned District Judge, dated 18.03.2008, was restricted to the extent that the Petitioners were not permitted to take any action for not filing the Mining Plan as duly signed by the Respondent no.2. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that as the said Order is in operation and the Petitioners have not taken any steps to clarify and modify the said Order, the question of interfering with the impugned Order does not arise at all, at this stage.

Shri Sonak, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.2, has supported the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1 only to the extent that the Petitioners are required to be necessary parties to the proceedings pending before the learned District Judge.

Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the records and taking note of the fact that the Order passed by the learned District Judge dated 18.03.2008 is still in operation and the matter is fixed for final disposal before the learned District Judge, I find that the learned Judge has rightly rejected the application filed by the Petitioners. There is no jurisdictional error committed by the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned Order and, as such, no interference is called for in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Nevertheless, taking into consideration the said contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, liberty is given to the Petitioners if they so advise to file an appropriate application before the learned District Judge for clarification/modification of the impugned Order dated 18.03.2008. In case such application is filed, the same shall be considered by the learned Judge after hearing all the parties in accordance with law.

Mr. Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, on instructions, states that the Petitioner will file such application within one week from today.

Mr. Sonak, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.2 raises grievances that the proceedings are being delayed unnecessarily for some reason or the other before the learned Judge. As such, the learned Judge, is directed to dispose of the proceedings as expeditiously as possible. Both the above Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.