PRASHANT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks to challenge order of respondent no.3 Mining Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology, Rajasthan, Sikar, dated 14.03.2008 (Annexure-6) by which mining lease granted to petitioner was revoked and subsequent order dated 06.08.2008 (Annexure-8) of the Government dismissing his Revision No.55/2008 filed thereagainst.

(2.) Shri Anoop Dhand, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that mining lease was granted in favour of petitioner vide order dated 10.08.2007, but its copy was never served on him. It was for the first time that a notice dated 08.02.2008 came to be served on his father on 15.02.2008. According to Rule 19(1) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short, 'the Rules of 1986'), where the lease has been granted or renewed under these Rules, the grantee shall pay demarcation fee, get the area demarcated, deposit the security along-with one quarterly installment of annual dead-rent and submit requisite stamps for execution of formal lease deed in Form No.5 within 45 days from the date of receipt of order for grant. It is contended that even from the date of service of aforesaid notice i.e. 15.02.2008, if 45 days are counted, this period expired on 31st March, 2008, whereas the respondents cancelled the mining lease i.e. in less than a period of one month on 14.03.2008. Learned counsel submitted that the order of grant of mining lease dated 10.08.2007 was never served earlier either upon petitioner or any of his family members. The revisional authority has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter.

(3.) Shri Zakir Hussain, learned Additional Government Counsel, opposed the writ petition and submitted that proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1986 provides that if the grantee applies before expiry of 45 days specified in sub-rule (1) for extension of time for completing the formalities mentioned therein, the competent authority may allow further time not exceeding three months subject to payment of penalty at the rate of 9% of annual dead rent for every month of delay or part thereof. If the petitioner caused delay in getting the lease-deed executed by not producing the same within time, it was for him to approach the competent authority for extension of time for completing the formalities, which exercise has not been undertaken by him. The competent authority was fully justified in cancelling the mining lease.