ARJUN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions having similar facts and involving an identical issue regarding interpretation of Clause (vii) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1986 have been heard together; and are taken up for disposal by this common order.

(2.) THE Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1986 ('the Rules of 1986' hereafter) have been made by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 for regulating the grant of quarry licences, mining leases, and other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for connected purposes. Chapter-III of the Rules of 1986 deals with grant of quarry licences wherein Rule 22 provides that no quarry licence shall be granted for any mineral deposit unless it is notified by the Mining Engineer/assistant Mining Engineer after due approval of the Director in the Gazette or in the newspaper as provided therein; and such notification is to be made after delineating the plots of quarries and is required to mention the dimension of area for each licence; but such notification may not be necessary for the areas in respect of which Rent-cum-Royalty leases had been granted earlier and had been converted into quarry licences in accordance with the Rules. THE said Rule 22 also provides for maximum number of the licences that will be issued to a person and also for restriction on grant of licence to a person standing in dues with the Department. Rule 23 provides for the form of an application for grant of quarry licence, the documents required to be submitted therewith, and the requisite fees; Rule 24 provides for maintaining of the register of quarry licence applications and the register of quarry licences issued; Rule 25 provides for minimum and maximum area under a quarry licence; and Rule 26 provides for the procedure for grant and renewal of quarry licence. Rule 27 with which we are concerned in these matters provides for reservation and preferential right of certain categories of persons for grant of quarry licences when a new block of quarry is delineated in respect of minerals other than those specified therein and as per the percentage indicated. Rule 27 (1) as in operation at the relevant time read as under:- ''27. Reservation and preferential right of certain categories of persons:- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, when a new block of quarries is delineated, quarry licences for minerals other than marble, dolomite, rhyolite, granite, serpentine, diorite and any other rock used for slab or tile making shall be kept reserved for the following categories of persons as per percentage indicated against each category:- (i) Manual workers belonging to Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes / Other Backward Classes employed in mines. 10% (ii) Manual workers other than Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes / Other Backward Classes 20% (iii) Persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes / Other Backward Classes 20% (iv) Persons selected under ''integrated Rural Development Program'' or ''antyodaya Yojana'' of the State Government. 10% (v) Village artisans and land-less labourers. 10% (vi) Ex-soldiers including members of para military forces belonging to Rajasthan who have been permanently disabled and the dependents of those who have been killed in action. 10% (vii) Rajasthan State Government servants who have become permanently disabled while on duty or the dependents of those who have been killed while on duty 10%; and (viii) Other applicants. 10%''

(3.) IT may be pointed out that in the petition relating to CWP No. 5423/2006 an additional fact has been stated that the respondent No. 5 allottee submitted a false affidavit for grant of quarry licence while asserting that she had not been sanctioned any other quarry in any area though the fact remained that she had been granted quarry No. 515 in Kalore- A area under the order dated 22. 06. 1995. Be that as it may, this fact has only been noticed and else shall have no bearing on the questions involved in the case because this aspect seems not to have been put in issue before the mining authorities. Essentially the case of the petitioners has been that they were entitled to be considered as the applicants falling in category No. (vii) aforesaid.