SUDARSHAN KUMAR PUROHIT Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dt. 19.11.08 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against order dt. 16.7.08 of Superintending Mining Engineer, Jaipur, accepting the application dt. 22.12.07, preferred by the petitioner surrendering the mining lease w.e.f. 22.6.08, stands dismissed. The relevant facts are that a mining lease granted initially in favour of M/s. Mahendra Company Limited for excavation of marble at village -Saradhana, Tehsil -Bewar, District -Ajmer, was transferred in favour of the petitioner vide order dt. 28.7.01. The petitioner vide an application dt. 22.12.07, submitted before the Superintending Mining Engineer, Jaipur surrendered the mining lease with immediate effect in terms of Rule 18(18) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 ( for short "the Rules"). It is submitted that as on the date of making the application for immediate surrender of the mining lease, neither any dues were outstanding nor any proceedings regarding breach of any condition of the mining lease was pending against the petitioner. Pending consideration of the application preferred, vide order dt. 2.6.08 issued by the Mining Engineer, Ajmer, penalty of forfeiture of 10% of the amount of security deposit quantified at Rs. 4,910/ - was imposed upon the petitioner for alleged late deposit of difference security amount. Accordingly, keeping in view the outstanding dues against the petitioner, the application preferred for surrender of lease was accepted vide order dt. 16.07.2008 passed by the Superintending Mining Engineer, after a period of six months from the date of notice i.e. w.e.f. 22.6.08 and consequently, the petitioner has become liable to pay the dead rent for the period from 22.12.2007 to 22.06.2008. In these circumstances, aggrieved by the order dt. 16.07.2008, the petitioner preferred revision petition before the State Government, which stands dismissed by the Deputy Secretary, Mines, Government of Rajasthan, by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revisional authority has seriously erred in rejecting the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dt. 16.7.08 passed by the Superintending Mining Engineer accepting the application preferred by the petitioner for surrender of mining lease after expiry of six months from the date of making the application. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, as on 22.12.07, neither any dues were outstanding nor any other proceeding regarding breach of condition of mining lease was pending against the petitioner and therefore, the authority concerned was under an obligation to accept the surrender of mining lease with immediate effect as mandated by Rule 18(18) of the Rules. Learned counsel submitted that the penalty was imposed vide order dt. 2.6.08 after procuring the letter dt. 31.5.08 from the Mining Engineer, Ajmer regarding alleged non removal of the deficiencies pointed out. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the amount of dead rent and the late fee in terms of the deficiencies pointed out at serial No. 1 & 3 were deposited by the petitioner and even the penalty imposed could have been recovered from the security deposit of the petitioner and therefore, even otherwise, the respondents could not have deferred the acceptance of the application preferred by the petitioner for surrender of mining lease with immediate effect. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order impugned passed by the respondent authority without considering the correct factual position and the law applicable, is ex facie illegal and arbitrary and therefore, order impugned deserves to be set aside.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.