SHANTI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A mining lease for mineral marble (ML No. 292/89) granted to the petitioner for ten years from 20-11-1989 was cancelled by the Mining Engineer, Rajsamand by the order dated 12-8-1992 (Annex. 1) for default and deficiencies in payment of dead-rent, for filing of the record for royalty assessment and the monthly statistical figures. This order dated 12-8-1992 was challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal under Rule 43 of the Rajasthan Miner Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). This appeal (No. 61/94) was filed as late as on 23-4-1994 and was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay which was disallowed by the Addl. Director (Mines), Udaipur Zone, Udalpur and the appeal was dismissed by the order dated 24-10-1994 (Annex. 3), A further appeal as provided under Rule 43 of the Rules was taken by the petitioner to the State Government. However, this appeal was also dismissed by the order dated 18-5-1995 (Annex. 8). The petitioner has submitted this writ petition assailing the aforesaid orders, Annex-1, An- nex-3 and Annex-8.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the present writ petition are that the petitioner was a granted mining lease. ML No. 292/89, for mineral marble near village Sapol Tehsil and District Rajsamand for an area of 10000 sq. meters for a period of ten years from 20-11- 1989. The petitioner claims that this area falls in khatedari land of one Devi Singh who has extended a no objection certificate on 6-2-1989 in his favour for obtaining the mining lease. A copy of this no objection certificate has been produced as Annex.A with the writ petition, but the fact regarding this certificate has not been admitted by the respondents. Be that as it may, the petitioner has submitted that after obtaining the mining lease, he carried developmental activities, over-burden was removed and with huge investment, mines were developed. The Mining Engineer issued a notice on 4-3-1992 pointing out three breaches on the part of the petitioner. This notice was never served upon the petitioner. However, the mining lease was cancelled by the Mining Engineer by the order dated 12-8-1992 (Annex. 1).

(3.) The petitioner has alleged that the order cancelling mining lease was also not served upon him and he came to know about it for the first time on 14-2-1994 when his power of attorney holder approached the Department for obtaining Ravanna Books and for depositing the dead-rent. The petitioner immediately applied for copy of notice and the cancellation order etc. and the copies were supplied on 19-3-1994 and the appeal was filed before respondent No. 2 on 23-4-1994.