DIWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall also govern the disposal of writ appeal 601/06 (Diwan Singh v. State of M.P. and others). Both the appeals are filed under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, against the order dated 21.11.2006 passed by Writ Court in Writ Petitions No. 2967/06 and 5124/06.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that one quarry lease for extraction of flag stone situated on land survey No. 952, having an area of 2.141 hect. in village Jakhoda, Tahsil and District Gwalior was granted to one Manish Nayak for a period often years commencing from 24.8.1995 to 23.8.2005. However, Manish Nayak transferred the said lease to appellant Diwan Singh on 27.9.2004 for the remaining period till 23.8.2005. The lease period was expiring on 23.8.2005. As per rule 17 of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules 1996 (for brevity the 'rules of1996 ), the application for renewal of quarry lease was required to be filed at least one year before from the date on which the lease was due to expire, i.e., 23.8.2005, therefore, admittedly the application for renewal was required to be filed on 22.8.2004 but the application was filed on 28.10.2004. Because the application for renewal was not filed before one year as required under rule 17, the Collector vide his order dated 22.7.2005 rejected the renewal application. Against which appellant Diwan Singh filed an appeal before the Director, Geology and Mining, MP, Bhopal. Vide order Annexure P-2 dated 22.8.2005 the appeal was allowed by the Director. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.7.2006 Annexure P-3 the lease was renewed. In the meantime, one Malanpur Stone Company through its partner Smt. Pyaribai filed an application on 24.8.2005 for grant of mining lease of the same survey number and same area. On Smt. Meera also filed application on 17.5.2005 for grant of lease ofthe same area and survey number. Malanpur Stone Co. as well as Smt. Meera both also preferred appeal against the order dated 22.8.2005 passed by Director, Geology and Mining, before the State Government on the analogy that they are also the applicants for the quarry lease on the aforesaid survey number, therefore, they have right therein but the State Government vide order dated 17.3.2006 dismissed the appeal vide Annexure P-1. Against which Malanpur Stone Co. filed writ petition No. 2967/06 and Smt. Meera also filed writ petition No. 5124/06.

(3.) SHRI M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the appellant argued and submitted that on 22.8.2005 when the Director, Geology and Mining allowed the appeal of Diwan Singh, the application of Malanpur Stone Co. was not pending and the application filed by Smt. Meera on 17.5.2005 was premature, therefore, they were not having any right to file appeal before State Government and to challenge the order of Director in appeal dated 22.8.2005 and the learned Single Judge has committed illegality in issuing writ of mandamus and has also wrongly set aside the orders Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3, whereas the appeal was allowed by Director, Geology and Mining and thereafter vide order dated 20.7.2006 lease was renewed in his favour and both the orders are legal and justified. There is no provision in the rules to follow consequences if renewal application is not filed within one year and in any case as the lease was transferred in his favour, no period of one year had left. Considering the aforesaid fact, the Director, Geology and Mining in appeal vide order dated 22.8.2005 (Annexure P-2) has rightly condoned the delay as die patta was transferred on 27.9.2004 in favour of appellant Diwan Singh and before that it was not possible for him to apply for renewal and, therefore, the Director rightly allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Collector and Collector vide order dated 20.7.2006 rightly renewed the lease in favour of the appellant and the learned Single Judge has committed illegality in setting aside the aforesaid order.