RAMSWAROOP SAINI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated 19th February, 2008, the Deputy Director, Mines, declined the prayer of the petitioner for renewal of the mining lease in view of the contemplation under Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1986 (for short "the Rules of 1986"). The order was confirmed on an appeal under Rule 43/47 of the Rules of 1986 vide order dated 19th November, 2008; of which the petitioner is aggrieved of, and therefore, has instituted the present writ petition praying for the following relief(s):

(2.) Briefly, the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy involved herein are that the petitioner was initially granted a mining lease on 26th March, 1987, for a period of 10 years with effect from 13th April, 1997. Mining operations remained closed on account of stay granted by the Supreme Court in Tarun Bharat Sangh's case since 8th April, 1993. The petitioner's mining lease area was found to be outside the core area of 866 sq. kms. However, the mining lease of the petitioner was determined on 28th April, 1994, with forfeiture of security amount. An appeal preferred was declined by the Additional Director, Mines, on 4th April, 1995. The order was subjected to an unsuccessful review petition that was declined on 3rd January, 1997. The Deputy Secretary, Mines, also declined the appeal on 7th December, 1998. S.B Civil Writ Petition Number 53 of 1999 directed against the order dated 7th December, 1998, was allowed remanding the matter back to the Additional Director, Mines, for decision afresh in accordance with law. On 28th October, 2005, the petitioner made an application for renewal and also deposited an amount of Rs.25,058/- on 22nd October, 2005. On another writ petition instituted i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 6103 of 2006; was disposed off taking note of the order dated 13th April, 2006, passed by the Deputy Secretary, Mines Department, observing that the petition was pre-mature in view of the order already made on 13th April, 2006. The Director (Mines) and the Mining Engineering concerned were directed to do the needful in the backdrop of the order dated 13th April, 2006.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashwani Chobisa, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, has vehemently argued that the action of the State-respondents in declining the renewal of the mining lease, in view of the contemplation under Rule 8(2) and 17(2) of the Rules of 1986, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the mandate of Rules of 1986. According to the learned counsel, since the lease of the petitioner was determined on 28th April, 1994, and the matter was under litigation until order dated 21st November, 2005; therefore, declining the renewal of the lease in favour of the petitioner for the petitioner did not make an application for its renewal within the currency of the original period of lease i.e. 28th April, 1997; is bad in the eye of law. It is further urged that if the period of litigation is excluded; in that event, the application of the petitioner, which was filed on 28th October, 2005, would fall within the currency period of original lease of 10 years, which was to end on 12th April, 1997.