BHANU PRATAP PANDEY Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a lessee under the Rules known as Mineral Concession Rules 1960 (for brevity here in after referred to as the Rules). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lease granted in favour of the petitioner expired but before expiration of the lease, the petitioner moved an application for renewal of the mining lease under sub -rule (1) of Rule' 24 -A of the Rules.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the said sub -rule (1) which is extracted below : - -

(3.) IN the present case the question of involvement is of interpretation of Clause (6) of Rule 24 -A. No factual controversy is involved.