The applicant who is common in all these applications have filed these applications seeking amendment in the main matters. Main matters were filed with following prayers, which are common in all the petitions:
"(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit this petition;
(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents nos. 2 and 3 to hand over the quarry lease to the petitioner with possessions letter of the grant area and allowing the petitioner to do mining operations in the said area;
(C) pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the respondents nos. 2 and 3 to hand over the quarry lease to the petitioner with possessions letter of the grant area and allowing the petitioner to do mining operations in the said area;
(D) granting such and further reliefs and passing such other and further orders as the circumstances of the case may require".
During pendency of petitions allotment of lease was revoked vide order dated 27/12/2011, admittedly after this Court (Coram: Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J) issued notice dated 19/12/2011in Special Civil Application No. 18012 of 2011 and Special Civil Application No. 18014 of 2011 and dated 16/12/2011 in Special Civil Application No. 18013 of 2011 respectively.
Learned AGP Ms. Patel has contended that this amendment cannot be granted as it amounts to changing the entire basis of the petitions and as there is fresh cause of action same petitions cannot be permitted to continue with amendment which have the effect of changing the original challenge. Moreover the order impugned by way of this amendment is liable to be challenged before the appellate authority.
This Court is of the considered view that these civil applications are required to be allowed as the petitioner in the petitions were before the Court challenging inaction and or lack of action on the part of the concerned, so as to enable the petitioner to start working under the order of allotment which was dated 6/4/2011. The petitioner was constrained to file petitions and these petitions are entertained and notices are issued. When the petitioner was before this Court and notices were issued in the petitions, the impugned order dated 27/12/2011 is passed which is sought to be impugned by way of this amendment and when the petitioner has categorically averred on oath that the action is colourable exercise of power and malafide as could be seen from the averment made in para no. 3.16 of the application, the applications cannot be rejected on sole ground of it being changing the nature of the original challenge. In fact the petitioner is required to be permitted to amend the petitions, and hence these applications are required to be granted. Accordingly the petitions are granted. However, granting of these applications and rejecting contentions of the learned AGP against the applications would not preclude the respondents from taking up all the contentions once the petitions are amended, including maintainability of the petitions on the ground of availability of alternative remedy by way of challenging the order in appeal before the appellate authority and multiplicity of cause of action.
These applications are therefore allowed. The petitions be amended and amended copy of the petitions be served upon the respondents and the petitions may come up for hearing on 1/2/2012.
[ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn Top