BHANWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Bhanwar Singh, obtained a mining lease for extracting sand-stone from the Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan for a period of five years from January 6, 1974, to January 5, 1979. On June 12, 1978 he made an application for the renewal of the lease. THE Assistant Mining Engineer wrote a letter, dated, August 1, 1978, to the petitioner requiring him to submit a "no dues certificate ' and a statement regarding future plans of the petitioner for the development of the area. THE petitioner sent a reply that it was for the Assistant Mining Engineer himself to issue the 'no dues certificate' and that since he had already paid all the dues, he may issue the requisite certificate. He sent a statement about what he had done and proposed to do for the development of the mining area. On his failure to obtain the renewal from the Assistant Mining Engineer, the petitioner approached the Superintending Mining Engineer pleading that under rule 17 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 (the Rules, for short) he was entitled to a renewal of the lease for a period of 10 years. It appears that even the Superintending Mining Engineer was also not persuaded to grant the renewal as prayed. Rules lay down (See rules 8 (2) and 17 (3) that if the application for grant of renewal is not disposed of within the period of original lease, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended for a period of six months or till the date of the communication of the refusal to the lessee whichever is earlier. Since there was no communication of refusal in this case, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended for a period of six months only, i. e. from January 6, 1979 to July 5, 1979.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the "deemed refusal", the petitioner made an application under rule 64 of the Rules for revision and for a direction to the subordinate authorities to grant the renewal for a period of 10 years. The petitioner avers that the revision was set down for hearing on March 12, 1980, but he could not enter appearance that day, and that he has since learnt that the same was dismissed.

(3.) MOREVER, it bears repetition that the language of rule 17 (3) of the Rules is entirely different from the language of the rule which was being considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Rule 17 (3) clearly provides for refusal to grant renewal. It cannot be set at naught on the basis of a ruling dealing with a rule cauched in an entirely different language.