HARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Hari Singh S/o Sh.Samudra Singh has filed this writ petition in this Court on 18.12.2007 challenging the impugned order Annex. 2 dtd. 26.9.2006 passed by the Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur and order (Annex. 4) dtd. 24.4.2007 passed by the Revisional Authority, namely, Dy. Secretary (Mines), Jaipur refusing to grant renewal of the mining lease No. 128/95 for 9 hectares of mining are situated at Khojo Ki Dhani, Tehsil Bilara, Dist Jodhpur for mining of lime stone.

(2.) THE said mine was initially granted in favour of the petitioner on 1.4.1986 and a lease -deed of 10 years was executed in his favour, which was extended upto 20 years vide order dtd. 10.10.1996. The renewal of said mining lease was due on 31.3.2006. The petitioner applied for renewal of said mining lease on 10.8.2006 after a delay of about 4 months, but since the renewal application was not filed within one year prior to the date on which the said mining lease was to expire on 31.3.2006, the possession of the said mine was taken over by the respondent -Mining Department on 3.4.2006 itself, with a few days of expiry of the period.

(3.) THE petitioner explained before the Revisional Authority that the delay of 4 months took place on account of long illness of petitioner Hari Singh and he also submitted that in view of Rule 17(2) of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1986), the lease could be renewed and the delay of four months could be condoned upon taking the penalty prescribed under Rule 17(2) of the said Rules specially when the mining lease area was not declared vacant and allotted to any third party by that time and that the petitioner had spent a huge sum and invested therein for development of the mine for last 20 years. However, the Revisional Authority dismissed his revision petition simply reiterating the grounds given in the impugned order Annex. 2 dtd. 26.9.2006 of Additional Director that since there was delay in filing of renewal application on 10.8.2006, therefore, the delay could not be condoned and the revision petition was also dismissed. Aggrieved by these two orders, the petitioner, therefore, preferred the writ petition before this Court.