N.Rajashekar v. Union of India and Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. OCTOBER 14, 2015 'gsr' (corrected & released on 24th December, 2015)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 14th October, 2015 + W.P.(C) NO.5499/2012 N. RAJASHEKAR ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Shweta S. Parihar, Adv. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vivek Goyal, Adv. for R-1. Mr. Joseph Aristotle S. & Mr. M.B. Elak Kumaran, Advs. for R-2. Mr.Mayank Kshirsagar & Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advs. for R-3. Mr. Rajeev Sharma with Ms. Radhalakshmi R. & Ms. Priyanka Raj, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The petition impugns the order dated 28th February, 2012 of the Revision Authority (Central Government) under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (MMDR) Act, 1957 of dismissal of the Revision Application (under Section 30 of the Act read with Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960) preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 20th / 25th October, 2010 of the respondent No.2 Government of State of Karnataka. 2. The petition came up before this Court first on 3rd September, 2012 when the counsel for the petitioner confined the challenge in the petition to non consideration of the pertinent parameters in the matter of grant of mining lease, both by the Revision Authority as well as by the Original Authority. 3. Notice of the petition was issued, though interim relief sought was not granted. The matter has thereafter been adjourned from time to time. No counter affidavits have been filed by any of the respondents despite opportunity. 4. The counsel for the petitioner today also seeks adjournment on the ground that the main counsel Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni is not available. 5. However, there is no justification for non appearance of the main counsel when the matter is listed before this Court and the petition as old as this cannot be kept pending awaiting the counsels. 6. The counsel for respondent No.3 Mysore Minerals Ltd. (MML) has been heard and the file has been perused. 7. The counsel for the respondent No.3 MML has at the outset drawn attention to the order dated 15th April, 2014 recording the prima facie view that this Court is not the forum conveniens for the present controversy and drawing attention of the counsels to Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India 181 (2011) DLT 658 (LB). He contends that since the matter relates to the mining lease of the State of Karnataka and the petitioner as well as the contesting respondents No.2 and 3 are also not situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the parties should be relegated to the jurisdiction of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Chinteshwar Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2013 LawSuit (Del) 4608 in this regard. 8. I have however enquired from the counsel for the respondent No.3 MML, what is the local flavour in the present litigation, owing whereto this Court though admittedly having territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition owing to the Revision Authority whose order is impugned being located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, should refuse to do so because of the High Court of Karnataka being a more appropriate and suitable Court to decide the controversy. 9. No such local flavour has been pointed out. 10. I am of the view that this Court would be justified in refusing to exercise the jurisdiction on the ground of forum conveniens only if finds that another High Court is the more appropriate and suitable Court to decide the controversy. Else, if the matter does not entail knowledge of any local flavour and entails only adjudication of legal issues, the recusal of jurisdiction on such ground would not be proper. Reference in this regard may be made to Jan Chetna Vs. Ministry of Environment & Forests 189 (2012) DLT 550 where a Division Bench of this Court held where the challenge is purely legal and though relating to a project in the State of Chhattisgarh, has no local flavour to hold that the High Court of Chhatti