LILADHAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution whereby the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus against the respondents for compelling them to renew the petitioner's lease for the manufacture of brick earth for a period of five years from 1-4-1963 in accordance with Rule 30 of the rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Ruless, 1955 (hereinafter called 1955 Rules)and Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1859 (hereinafter called 1959 Rules ).

(2.) THE petitioner carries on the business of manufacture of bricks at Bhadra in district Ganga-nagar. He had obtained an allotment of Khasva No. 331 frond the colonization authorities for the purpose of setting up a brick kiln and thereafter he had set up the brick kiln. The petitioner also obtained a lease from the Mines Department in accordance with 1955 Rules for quarrying earth for the purposes of manufacturing bricks. This lease purports to have been granted under Rule 57 (2)of the 1955 Rules. The Mining Department renewed the lease every year and the last renewal was to enure upto 31-3. 1963. Thereafter, when the petitioner applied for a further renewal the Assistant Mining engineer refused to renew the lease unless the petitioner obtained, a "no objection certificate" from the Colonization Department. Against the order of the Assistant mining Engineer the petitioner approached the Deputy Minister, Mines and Geology department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur but the latter refused to do any thing in the matter. The petitioner claims that as the lease in question was gianted to "him in accordance with 1955 Rules he was entitled to get a renewal for a further period of five years in accordance with Rule 30 of the aforesaid rules. After the 1955 Rules were repealed by 1959 Rules, Rule 30 of the old rules (1955 Rules)was. replaced by Rule 16 of the 1959 Rules and according to the petitioner, the position was the same, and whatever right for renewal was created by Rule 30 of the old rules was still available to him under Rule 16 of the 1959 Rules.

(3.) THE writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. The learned government Advocate raised a preliminary objection to the effect that by lapse of time the lease of the petitioner had come to an end and hereafter as renewal was granted to him more than twice no further right for renewal remained in him, and consequently, he had no legal right to maintain the present petition.