S.A. RASHEED versus DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 883 · Decided: 28-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

S.A. RASHEED 
A 
v. 
.. 
DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY AND ANOTHER 
APRIL 28, 1995 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Alticle 226. 
, 
Laches and delay-Quarrying leas~ranted-Lease deed not ex-
ecuted-Revision allegedly filed against such omission-Writ petition filed C 
after eight years-No explanation given for the delay-No document filed to 
show that the petitioner ever reminded the authorities for disposal of 
revision-No document filed to show that the .authorities asked petitioner to 
wait---ln such circumstances the High Coult rightly held the writ petition to 
be suffering from unexplained /aches and delay-Kamataka Minor Mineral 
Concession Rules, 1969-Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) D 
Ac~ 1957. 
Infructuous writ petition-Quarrying lease for a specified period 
granted-Lease deed not executed-Writ petition against such omission filed 
after long delay-Lease period contemplated by the grant expiring by the time E 
of decision-High Coult rightly held that issuance of writ at this stage would 
not be just and proper. 
The appellant applied on July 4, 1980 for grant of a quarry lease in 
respect of pink granite admeasuring 300 acres. On January 6, 1981, a lease 
was granted to him in respect of 100 acres. At the instance of the appellant, F 
a corrigendum was issued on June 6, 1981 stating that the area in respect 
of which the appellant had been granted lease shall be read as 300 acres. 
Before a lease deed could be executed in favonr of the appellant as required 
by the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969, Rule 3(a) was 
introduced in the said Rules prohibiting the grant of. mining lease in G 
respect of granite to private persons with effect from July 2, 1981. In view 
of the said Rule, the respondents declined to execute a lease deed in his 
favour pursuant to the said grant. 
Aggrieved by the refusal to execute the lease deed, the appellant filed 
a revision before the respondents on July 26, 1981. Prior to the filling of H 
883 
' 
884 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 3 S.C.R. 
A the said revision, he had also filed a representation to the same effect on 
July 21, 1981. The filing of the revision and the submitting of the repre-
f _ 
sentation afor~said was denied and disputed by the respondents. The 
appellant in the year 1989, i.e.; after a lapse of eight years filed a writ 
petition before the High Court for direction to the respondents to execute 
B the lease deed. The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground of 
undue delay and !aches. Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment the 
appellant preferred the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that he had filed a 
revision and representation before the respondents to execute the lease 
C deed; that since writ petitons were pending in the High Court he was asked 
to await the result of the said proceedings; that because of the said 
assurance he did not move further in the matter; that when the respon-
dents refused to excute the lease deed even after the position of law was 
made clear by the High Court and this Court, he filed the writ petiton in 
the year 1989; and that he was not gnilty of unexplained delay and !aches. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1. It is significant to notice that the averments are singular-
ly silent as to who asked the appellant - petitioner to "await". Not a single 
E letter or proceeding is filed to establish the said averment. The petitioner 
also does not say that he ever requested in writing for execution of the lease 
deed - not even after the judgment of this court. It is rather curious that 
even after this Court's judgment, the appellant is said to have been asked 
to "await" and he just kept waiting. [891-A, BJ 
F 
1.2. There is not a shred of paper to show that between 1988 and 1989, 
the appellant had ever reminded the respondents of his revision petition or 
asked for its disposal. There is also not a scrap of paper to establish that 
the respondents had ever asked him to wait. It is ununderstandable, why 
was he asked to wait even after the decision of this Court - on the ground 
G that some other similar writ petitions were pending in the High Court - and 
why did the appellant implicitly agreed to wait. The entire explanation is 
vagne and unacceptable. The writ petition filed by the appellant suffered 
from !aches and the delay has remained unexplained. (892-F to HJ 
2. Even if a lease deed had been ex
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.