BASANT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us filed a writ petition in the High Court of Rajasthan challenging the validity of Rule 21 and Rule 65-A of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'); for quashing the notification dated October 10, 1994 declaring the marble policy of the State Government; and for the relief of directing the grant of lease of minor mineral in respect of certain lands delineated a plots Nos. 2, 3 and 5 in Morwad area and for certain other incidental reliefs. The High Court dismissed the said writ petition in view of its earlier decision in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 865 of 1995. Hence these appeals.

(2.) The facts leading to the writ petition are that the appellant filed an application on 2-12-1993 under Rule 5 of the Rules in the prescribed form before the Mining Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology for grant of mining lease in respect of marble which is a minor mineral for a period of 10 years in respect of delineated plots Nos. 2, 3 and 5. The Mining Engineer forwarded the said application to the Director of Mines and Geology stating that the dead rent of the area applied for by the appellant comes to Rs. 1,25,000/- and the application is to be decided by the State Government. However, the application was not further processed. In those circumstances, he preferred the writ petition as aforesaid.

(3.) The appellant contended that grant of mining lease in respect of minor mineral is governed by the Rules framed under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Rule 21 provides for grant of mining lease by auction or tender and Rule 65-A provides for grant of mining lease by adopting prescribed procedure different from that given in the Rules. It is in exercise of Rule 65-A of the Rules, the Government has issued the notification, which was under challenge before the High Court. The principal contention raised by the appellant is that the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 15 of the Act cannot frame rules contrary to the said provision and that by reason of the prohibition contained in the proviso to Section 15 (3) of the Act the State Government cannot enhance the rate of royalty in respect of any minor mineral more than once during any period of 4 years. In a similar manner, the State Government cannot also enhance the rate of dead rent more than once during any period of 4 years. During any period of 4 years, the State Government can enhance both dead rent and royalty but only once. However, such a period of four years for the purpose of enhancing the rates of dead rent and royalty is to be reckoned from the date of coming into force of the Rules made by the State Government. Strong reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in D. K. Trivedi and Sons and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., 1986 (Supp) SCC 20.