DILIP DIXIT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing order 24.04.2006 (Annex-18) as well as order dt. 09.05.2006 (Annex-19), further praying that the entire proceeding culminating into the impugned order may also be quashed and set aside.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the Mining Department of the Government of Rajasthan had notified an area measuring 65.28 hectares for grant of lease for mineral soap-stone near village Odan, Tehsil Nathdwara (Rajasamand). The petitioner applied for the grant of lease in respect of the said areas as a whole but the petitioner was granted mining lease for areas measuring 44.92 hectares with effect from 15.02.1988 for period of 20 years. According to the petitioner, after 16 years on 16.05.2004, respondent No. 5 restrained the petitioner from operating the mining in the leased area. Though the petitioner filed reply, again a notice was given to the petitioner on 29.09.2004. That too was replied by the petitioner. Thereafter, without a by prior notice, the allotment of the mine in favour of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dt. 04.03.2006 which is placed on record as Annex-27.

(3.) According to the petitioner, a pre-planned cancellation action was taken for the purpose of allotment of land in favour of respondent No. 6 and, as the petitioner; the matter was monitored at the level of the Chief Minister, respondent No. 2. The petitioner's claim is that after cancellation of his lease on 04.03.2006, the area was allotted illegally to respondent No. 6 India Heritage Foundation of Bangalore and the petitioner filed revision petition against the cancellation of his mining lease before the revisional authority, Central Government in the Ministry of Mines under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 along with application for condonation of delay and the same is pending with the Central Government. According to the petitioner, the revision petition was listed before the Central Tribunal on 05.11.2007 for admissibility hearing and was admitted and notices have already been issued. The respondents have been service with notice in the said revision petition. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the matter of the petitioner with regard to cancellation of ins mining lease is pending before the revisional authority but the respondents have illegally allotted the said area to respondent No. 6.