SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S.B. Majmudar and D.P. Mohapatra, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 481 of 2000, Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9189 of 1999. D/d. 21.1.2000.

State of Rajasthan and another - Appellants

Versus

Rukhman Kanwar and others - Respondents

Constitution of India, Article 226 - Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 - Mining lease - Interim orders - Interim order passed in respect of land not forming the subject-matter of writ petition - PIL seeking the State to be restrained by a permanent injunction from granting any mining lease for that khasra number as well as for certain other khasra numbers in which no mining lease had been granted till then - Interim injunction by High Court restraining the State from exercising its statutory powers under the rules to grant mining lease in respect of the khasra numbers other than that in respect of which the impugned mining lease had been granted, held to be improper - Operation of the interim injunction restricted to the khasra number in question only.

[Paras 5 and 7]

ORDER

S.B. Majmudar, J. - Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. By consent of learned counsel for the parties this appeal is being disposed of finally.

3. The appellants are the State of Rajasthan and another officer being Mining Engineer dealing with the question of granting mining leases under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short "the Rules"). The contesting respondents who are appearing through their counsel and were writ petitioners before the High Court claim to be public-spirited citizens of Village Kankani who filed writ petition before the High Court on the ground that the State authorities had illegally granted mining lease to Respondent 5 and that lease should be treated to be null and void. They also stated that the State should be restrained by way of a permanent injunction from granting any mining lease for Khasra No. 587, which is the subject-matter of the lease granted to Respondent 5. The other khasra numbers of course are mentioned in the prayer clause of the writ petition and they are Khasras Nos. 590, 595, 597 and 599/1 of Village Kankani. While admitting the writ petition the Division Bench of the High Court has passed the impugned interim order which reads as under:

"Accordingly, Respondents 1 and 2 are restrained from granting lease, licence or permission or patta for mining purpose to anyone in Khasras Nos. 587, 590, 595, 597 and 599/1 till the final disposal of the writ petition. Respondent 3 is also restrained from carrying out further mining operation in Khasra No. 587 of Village Kankani till final disposal of this writ petition."

4. Now, it is obvious that when the challenge to the lease as granted to Respondent 5 is raised the petition has to be examined on its own merits and in the meantime Respondent 5 by way of interim order could be restrained from operating the mining lease. It is pertinent to note that so far as he is concerned he has not filed any special leave petition against the impugned interim order challenging the injunction granted against him. However, it is difficult to appreciate how the High Court could have persuaded itself, at interim stage, to direct the appellant State not to grant any lease, licence or permission or patta for mining purpose to anyone in other Khasras Nos. 590, 595, 597 and 599/1 till the final disposal of the writ petition. This interim injunction would obviously operate to restrain the State from exercising its statutory powers under the Rules.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent writ-petitioners fairly stated that up till now no such leases have been granted in favour of anyone but his apprehension is that they may be granted. It is difficult to appreciate this grievance as the State is restrained by the interim injunction granted by the High Court from exercising its statutory powers under the relevant Rules for these other khasra numbers which have up till not resulted in grant of leases to anyone.

6. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the public interest litigation pending in the High Court, we deem it fit to modify the interim relief and confine it to Khasra No. 587 only. Therefore, the interim order will operate only against Respondent 5. The interim injunction is vacated so far as Khasras Nos. 590, 595, 597 and 599/1 are concerned.

7. The civil appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.

Appeal allowed.