Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8735 (RAJ)

SMT. SANTOSH DEVI WIFE OF SHRI OM PRAKASH MEENA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/4050/2025 · 2025-04-08

Anoop Kumar Dhand

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4050/2025 Smt. Santosh Devi Wife Of Shri Om Prakash Meena, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Village Dhawa Wali, Tehsil Sri-Madhopur, District Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To The Government, Mines Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Mines And Geology Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 3. Additional Director, Mines And Geology Department, Jaipur Zone, 4Th Floor, Khanji Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Sharma for Mr. G.P. Kaushik JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/04/2025 1. The application submitted by the petitioner seeking mining lease was rejected by the Mining Engineer vide order dated 15.03.2007. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, however the same was also rejected vide order dated 27.10.2010 against which a revision petition was submitted before the Deputy Secretary, Mines and that too was rejected on 15.04.2013. (2 of 2) [CW-4050/2025] 3. The petitioner was sleeping over the matter for more than 12 years and one fine morning after a lapse of more than 12 years, he woke up and has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition challenging the validity of the aforesaid orders on the ground that one Sanjeev Kumar Katta also applied for getting same mining lease, his application was also rejected by the respondents on 25.07.2018, hence under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get the aforesaid mining lease. 4. No plausible or reasonable explanation has been put forward by the petitioner for approaching this Court after a great delay of more than 12 years. The instant writ petition suffers from delay and laches and the same is liable to be and is hereby rejected on this count alone. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/30