CHOWDHARY B S JAKHAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by Chowdhary B. S. Jokhar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petition, the petitioner was permitted to quarry bajri in the area of three plots measuring 200'x 200', 100'x 50 and 100'x 50' in village Pamari Pichupara, Tehsil Baswa in district Jaipur in accordance with the lease agreement under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules ). This permission was upto the 31st of March, 1958, and it was under rule 57 (2) of the Rules under annual quarly leases In the next year, the petitioner applied for permit for 3 plots measuring an area of 400' x 400', but the same area was delineated into 12 plots of 200' x 200' each and the petitioner was again permitted to quarry in the area of these 12 plots in accordance with a lease agreement. The petitioner says that the permission is valid upto 31st of March, 1959 and the highest rent at the rate of Rs. 48 per plot has been charged from him which he has already paid in full. The petition proceeds that the petitioner was quarrying bajri from the area of the aforesaid 12 plots delineated on the spot, but, on the 4th of August, 1958. He received an order dated the 21st July, 1958 from the Mining Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur Division, Jaipur, informing the petitioner that the said Engineer had been directed to cancel the permit of the petitioner which was No. 21071 dated the 10th May, 1958, with immediate effect. The petitioner says that the reason given for cancellation is that the area has not been delineated in regular small plots previously approved by the Director of Mines and Geology (hereinafter to be referred to as the Director) as required by rule 57 of the Rules. The petitioner challenges the said order (Ex. 2) dated the 21st July, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as the impugned order) as illegal on the following grounds: - (1) The petitioner was not allowed an opportunity of showing cause before the said order was passed, (2) the reason given in the impugned order is wrong and against the contents of the permit Ex. 1, and (3) the plots were delineated on the spot.