DALPAT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 13.01.2012 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition (CWP No. 13027/2011) filed by the petitioner-appellant in challenge to the order dated 17.06.2011 (Annex. 11) as passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur dismissing the revision petition preferred under Rule 47 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 ("the Rules of 1986") against an order dated 10.01.2008 (Annex. 9) whereby a quarry licence in relation to the Quarry No. 498 at mining area Khuman was granted in favour of the respondent No. 5, Smt. Tulsi Devi.

(2.) Put in brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that the petitioner was granted a quarry licence in relation to the aforesaid Quarry No. 498 by an order 08.01.1998 as issued by the Assistant Mining Engineer, Balesar ('the AME'). The case of the petitioner had been that he worked at the area making it fit for excavation but the quarry licence as issued in his favour was cancelled by the AME on 17.08.2004 under Rule 30(2) of the Rules of 1986, allegedly on the ground of default in payment of the monthly rent. The case of the petitioner further had been that he preferred an appeal against the order dated 17.08.2004 so passed by the AME before the Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur under Rule 43 of the Rules of 1986 on 08.04.2005 wherein, show cause notices were issued on 11.04.2005 and the record was also requisitioned; and wherein, the factual report was submitted by the AME on 15.12.2005.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the said appeal remained pending before the Appellate Authority and came to be decided by the order dated 14.12.2009 (Annex.4). The Appellate Authority took note of all the facts and circumstances of the case and, proposing to take a lenient view, accepted the appeal in the manner that while setting aside the cancellation order dated 17.08.2004, remanded the matter to the AME with the directions that upon the petitioner depositing within 30 days the due rent, interest and penalty and so also the additional penalty in the sum of Rs. 2,000/-, proceedings be adopted for restoration of the mining area in his favour. The Appellate Authority, however, put a proviso to the effect that its order would be operative only if the area in question had not been allotted in favour of anyone else and was vacant. The Appellate Authority ordered and observed as under:-