SHYAMLAL SAMARWAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner takes exception to the orders passed by the appropriate Authorities dated 02.08.2013,31.05.2014 and 08.12.2014 (Annexure -P/1, P/2 and P/3 respectively).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the petitioner was granted quarry lease of flagstone for area admeasuring 1.417 hectare khasra No.2 at village Kanpora. The lease period commenced from 05.04.2009 upto 5 years i.e. 14.04.2014. By an application dated 06.12.2012, the petitioner requested the respondent No.3 to consider his application for renewal of the said quarry lease. That application was, however, rejected by respondent No.3 vide order dated 02.08.2013, principally on the ground that after the amendment to Rule 7(2) of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (in short "Rules of 1996"), the Government can grant quarry lease of flagstone only by way of auction. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said decision under Rule 57(2) of the Rules of 1996. That appeal was also rejected on 31.05.2014, whilst reiterating the reasons stated by the Collector for rejecting the application for renewal of lease. The petitioner then carried the matter before the respondent No.2/Director, who in turn rejected the appeal vide order dated 08.12.2014 for the same reason. These orders are subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the amended provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996 cannot be invoked in the fact situation of the present case as the application for renewal of quarry lease was filed by him on 06.12.2012; whereas the amendment was brought into force after issuance of public notification published in the Official Gazette on 23.03 .2013. Further, the amended provisions, in no way, preclude the Authorities from granting renewal of lease keeping in mind the power vested under Rule 17 and 18 of the Rules of 1996. It is then submitted that the question posed by the petitioner has been answered in favour of the petitioner by the Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.4682/2010 decided on 30.08.2011. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and instead the respondents be directed to grant renewal of quarry lease for further period as is permissible in terms of Rules 17 and 18 of the Rules of 1996.