PETITIONER:
JAI SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT19/11/1976
BENCH:
KHANNA, HANS RAJ
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
CITATION:
1977 AIR 898 1977 SCR (2) 137
1977 SCC (1) 1
ACT
Practice and procedure--Extra-ordinary
jurisdiction--Whether relief to be granted when alternative
remedy availed of, and disputed questions of facts involved.
HEADNOTE
The appellant had leased some land from the Government
of Rajasthan for mining gypsum. A dispute .arose between the
parties regarding the rate of royalty payable by the appel-
lant. The appellant’s revision petition against the les-
sor’s decision to charge at the higher rate was dismissed by
the Central Government and then his writ petition was dis-
missed by the High Court on the grounds that the matter
involved determination of disputed questions of fact, and
that an alternative remedy has been availed of by the appel-
lant.
Dismissing the appeal the Court,.
HELD: The extent of purity of the gypsum won by the
appellant is a question of fact. ’Furthermore, after the
dismissal of the writ petition the appellant has filed a
suit, in which he has agitated the same question which is
the subject matter of the writ petition. The appellant
cannot pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same
matter at the same time.
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2206 of 1968.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 29-3-1968 of the
Rajasthan High Court in D.P. Civil W.P. No. 257/68.
S.M. Jain, for the appellant
B. Dutta, for respondent No. 1
Miss Maya Rao, for respondents Nos. 2-5.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHANNA, J. This appeal on certificate is against the
order of the Rajasthan High Court dismissing in limine the
petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, field by the appellant against the’ Union of India,
the State of Rajasthan and two others, praying for quashing
the demand made from the appellant in respect of royalty.
The appellant took on lease 180 acres of land from the
Government"of Rajasthan on June 18, 1962 for the purpose
of mining gypsum ore for a period of 20 years. Section
9(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and
Development),Act, 1957 relates to. royaltries in respect of
mining leases. According to that provision, the holder of
a mining lease granted on or after the commencement
138
of the said Act shall pay royalty in respect of any mineral
removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager,
employee, contractor or sub-lessee from the leased area at
the rate for the time being specified in the Second Sched-
ule in respect of that mineral. The Second Schedule provides
at item No. 13 the rate on which royalty, etc., in re-
spect of gypsum is to be paid. According to that item at
the relevant time, royalty would .be at the rate of Rs.
1.25 per tonne of gypsum containing 85 per cent and above
CaSO42H20 and at the rate of 75 paise per tonne of gypsum
containing less than 85 per cent of CaSO42H20.
Royalty was demanded from the appellant in respect of
gypsum won by him at the rate of Rs. 1.25 per tonne. The
case of the appellant, however, is that the gypsum which was
won by him contained less than 85 per cent of CaSO42H20.
As against that, the stand taken by the respondents is that
the appellant failed to furnish. the analysis reports from a
standard laboratory to show that gypsum won by him contained
less than 85 per cent CaSO42H20. Revision filed by the
appellant against the decision of the Rajasthan Government
to charge royalty at the rate of Rs. 1.25 per tonne was
dismissed by the Central Government.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground
that it involved determination of disputed questions of
fact. It was also observed that the High Court should not
in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction grant relief
to the appellant when he had an alternative remedy. After
hearing Mr. Sobhagmal Jain on behalf of the appellant, we
see no cogent ground to take a view different from that
taken by the High Court. There cannot, in our opinion, be
any doubt on the point that the extent of purity of the
gypsum won by the appellant is a question of fact. It has
also been brought to our notice that after the dismissal of
the writ petition by the High Court, the appellant has filed
a suit, in which he has agitated the same question which is
the subject matter of the writ petition. In our opinion,
the appellant cannot pursue two parallel remedies in respect
of the same matter at the same time.
Mr. Sobhagmal points out that the suit brought by the
appellant has been dismissed in default and that an applica-
tion for the restoration of the suit has been filed in the
trial court. Learned counsel for the. respondents state
that they would not oppose the application for restoration
of the suit. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal but with no
order as to costs.
M.R. Appeal dismissed.
139