RAMAKISHAN PRAJAPAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of this appeal are noted herein below: Shri Ramakishan Prajapat (the erstwhile mining lease holder-since deceased) through his legal representations filed Single Bench Writ Petition No. 14777/2018 for assailing the order dtd. 26/6/2018 passed by the Joint Secretary, Department of Mines whereby, the appeal preferred by Shri Ramakishan questioning the legality of the order dtd. 11/1/2002 passed by the Superintending Mining Engineer, Jodhpur cancelling the mining lease granted to Shri Ramakishan Prajapat was dismissed. Shri Ramakishan Prajapat was granted a mining lease of limestone mineral at the Village Hemdai, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali over an area admeasuring 5 Hectares comprising KhasraNo. 1633 for a period of twenty years w.e.f. 4/11/1999. Shri Ramakishan Prajapat failed to deposit the dead rent to the tune of Rs.37,300.00 for the period from 4/11/2000 to 3/5/2001 and thus, the Assistant Mining Engineer, Sojat City recommended cancellation of the mining lease. The Superintending Engineer accepted the recommendation and cancelled the mining lease granted in favour of the original lessee Shri Ramakishan Prajapat by order dtd. 11/1/2002. The security amount was forfeited and the mining area was taken possession of by the State Government. Aggrieved thereby, Shri Ramakishan Prajapat preferred an appeal before the Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur under Rule 43(1) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1986') which was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dtd. 19/4/2006. After lapse of about 6 years, Shri Ramakishan Prajapat deposited the outstanding dues to the tune of Rs.90,687.00 and preferred yet another appeal before the Additional Director (Mines) which was withdrawn on 16/7/2013. Parallaly, Shri Prajapat also preferred a second appeal before the Joint Secretary (Mines) against the order dtd. 19/4/2006 by invoking the procedure provided under Sec. 43(2) of the Rules of 1986. The said appeal was accompanied by an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. The second appeal preferred by Shri Ramakishan Prajapat was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dtd. 26/6/2008 as being barred by limitation and so also on merits. Shri Ramakishan Prajapat passed away and thus, for challenging the impugned orders, his legal representatives preferred the Single Bench Writ Petition No. 14777/2018 which has been dismissed by order dtd.4/12/2018 which is assailed in this intra court appeal filed by the LRs of Shri Ramkishan Prajapat.

(2.) Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned counsel representing the appellants, vehemently and fervently contended that the second appellate authority was absolutely unjustified in dismissing the appeal of the appellants. The lease cancellation order dtd. 11/1/2002 was never conveyed to the lease holder. The delay in depositing the dead rent was unintentional and it was deposited alongwith the penalty amount on 21/6/2012 after which, inadvertently, a first appeal was again preferred before the first appellate authority which was withdrawn on realising the mistake and the second appeal was preferred to the State Government supported by an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay for bonafide reason. The dismissal of the appeal as being barred by limitation was totally unjustified as the appellate order was passed ignoring the factum of the deposit of the dead rent albeit with some delay. Dr. Acharya vehemently contended that the order dtd. 11/1/2002 cancelling the mining lease was never conveyed to Shri Ramakishan Prajapat. That the amount of the dead rent has been deposited long back with penalty, etc. and thus, a lenient view deserves to be taken by restoring the mining lease in favour of the appellants-petitioners. He further urged that the learned Single Bench also fell in error while dismissing the writ petition on the technical issue of laches and that a pragmatic and humanitarian view should be taken by directing restoration of the mining lease in favour of the petitioners.

(3.) Per contra, Shri Sandeep Shah, learned AAG representing the respondents, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel and pointed out that the plea that the order of cancellation of the mining lease was not conveyed to the lease holder, is totally false because an appeal was actually preferred by the mining lease holder against the order dtd. 11/1/2002 before the Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur Zone which was dismissed on 19/4/2006. This order was not challenged within limitation and thus, the same attained finality. Deposit of the dead rent amount after significant delay would not entitle the lease holder or his legal representatives to get the lease restored because non-deposit of the dead rent entails the automatic consequence of cancellation of the mining lease. That being the situation, the appellants-petitioners are not entitled to any relief whatsoever.