PRAHLAD RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.09.2010, passed by the Additional Director (Mines) Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur revoking the sanction granted for a mining lease to the petitioner for the mineral marble in village Indo Ka Bas, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur on 05.05.2007 and also against the order dated 25.05.2011 whereby the Deputy Secretary, Mines Department, Rajasthan Jaipur has upheld the aforesaid order of recovation in a revision filed by the petitioner under Rule 47 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1986 (hereinafter 'the Rule of 1986').

(2.) THE admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for and was sanctioned a mining lease under letter dated 05.05.2007 for mineral marble near Indo Ka Bas, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur. In terms of the Rule 19 of the Rules of 1986, the petitioner as a sucessfulZ allottee of a mining lease was obliged to undertake certain steps within a period of 45 days of the receipt of the order of grant of sanction and to execute the lease-deed within three months from the date of receipt of the order of grant of sanction. In terms of Rule 71 of the Rules of 1986, every notice under Rules of 1986 required to be given to the lessee / licencee is to be given in writing, in person or by registered post addressed at the address recorded with the respondent-Department.

(3.) FROM the facts of the case, it is a little odd that the communication with regard to the order of grant of sanction to the petitioner for the mining lease as applied for mineral marble was not sent as required under Rule 71 of the Rule of 1986 by way of registered post. Apart from the aforesaid, which is a statutory requirement, the respondents have very fairly admitted that there was no proof of a receipt of the order of grant of sanction dated 05.05.2007 by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the petitioner could not have been held in default for non-compliance.