M/S Ajanta Minerals, Through Managing Partner, Shri. Rajendra Purushottam Tank, Nagpur v. The State Of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Department Of Industries, Energy And Labour, Mumbai
1 W.P.No.7128.2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 326 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7128 OF 2016 M/s Ajanta Minerals, through its Managing Partner Shri Rajendra Purushottam Tank, ..VS..
State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Industries, Energy and Labour, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Anr., --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'
s or Judge'
s orders appearances, Court'
s orders of directions and Registrar'
s orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri R. S. Parsodkar, Advocate for the Shri N. R. Patil, A.G.P. for the respondent No.1. Shri Arjun Vinod Bobde, Advocate with Shri Sarthak Bhatia, Advocate with Ms S. A. Jadhao, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Shri S. A. Mohta, Advocate for the applicant/intervenor. CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATED : 09.03.2021 Heard.
2.
The cause which the applicant/intervenor is seeking to plead is the same as the petitioner. The petitioner as well as this applicant/intervenor both claim to be partners in M/s. Ajanta Minerals and it is a common contention that the mining lease in question was granted not to the proprietary concerned owned by respondent No.2 but to the partnership Firm M/s. Ajanta Minerals wherein the petitioner, this applicant and other persons were the partners.
2 W.P.No.7128.2016 3.
As we have already heard the petitioner on behalf of all the persons who are claiming to be partners, we do not think that this application can be granted. We are also of the view that no prejudice will be caused to the applicant/intervenor by rejection of this application as the interest of this applicant has already been represented by the petitioner.
The application stands rejected.
JUDGE JUDGE Kirtak