KISHAN LAL KOLI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for a writ for quashing Notification No. AME/tonk/rcri/1982, dated, February 18, 1982, issued by the Assistant Mining Engineer, Tonk, inviting applications for the grant of mining lease for bajri over a certain area on the bank of river Banas in village Chironj on rent-cum-royalty basis, and for a direction to the respondents (i. e. , the State of Rajasthan, the Director of Mines Rajasthan and Assistant Mining Engineer, Tonk) to grant the mining lease over the area in question to the petitioner on long term basis and, till the finalisation of the long term mining lease in favour of the petitioner, to grant him a permit for removal of bajri on short term basis.

(2.) A perusal of the averments made in the writ petition would at once show that there is no merit at all in this petition and that therefore it should be dismissed in limine. It will be seen that the petitioner made an application, dated, February 23, 1981, for the grant of a mining lease for bajri over an area of 300x150 square metres, and simultaneously asked for a short-term permit till the application was granted on regular basis. The said application was rejected by the authorities concerned, vide order, dated November 12, 1981, on the ground that as a matter of policy the State Government had decided to grant such leases on rent -cum-royalty basis instead of granting them on payment of royalty alone. The petitioner filed a writ petition (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1923/1981) challenging the said rejection and obtained an interim order therein staying the operation of the order of rejection of his application. That writ petition was still pending when the petitioner filed the present writ petition on March 31,1982, alleging that the impugned notification, dated, February 18, 1982, inviting applications for the grant of a mining lease over the area in question for bajri on rent-cum-royalty basis had been issued to frustrate the petitioner's efforts, including his effort made by means of the earlier writ petition which is still pending, to obtain a mining lease on payment of royalty alone, because, as the petitioner further avers, even if the earlier writ petition is allowed the petitioner will still be not able to obtain the lease except on rent cum-royalty basis.