M R PALKHIVALA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Mining lease of the petitioner could not have been cancelled by the State Government on account of discontinuance in the working of the mining operations by him for a period of one year or more and that the order passed by the State Government in this respect is without jurisdiction Learned Additional Government Advocate contends that the mining lease of the petitioner has been determined in accordance with the provisions of law and the petitioner has an alternative remedy open to him of approaching the Central Government by way of revision under Section 30 of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Rules').

(2.) RULE 27 of the Rules prescribes certain conditions to which every mining lease shall be subjected to and which shall be deemed to have been incorporated in every mining lease. Sub -clause (f) of Sub -rule (1) of Rule 27 provides that the lessee shall begin such mining operations within one year of the dates of the execution of the lease and shell thereafter continue such operations a order skillful and workman manner unless the state operations in a proper skillful and works like manner unless the state government permitted otherwise according to the learned Counsel for the state ,the petitioner com matted a breach of the aforesaid Sub -clause (f) of Rule 27(1) of the Rules While learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that a subset discontinue of the mining operations by the lessee does not amount to a breach of the aforesaid provision Sub -section (5) of Section 27 Authorizes the State Government to date mine a mining lease and forfeit the whole of part of the security deposited of a lessee com matted a breach of any of the conditions of the lease and did not remedy such breach within a period of 60 days form the date on the receipt of notice in that on that respect from the State Government. In the present case, the State Government gave a notice to the petitioner on June 18, 1975, daring his attention to the fact that no mining work was being carried out by him for a period of more than one year. It is not despite by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in case the State Government proceeds to determine the lease under Sub -rule (5) of Rule 27 of the Rule then the lessee that a remedy open to him by way of preferring a revision petition before the central Government under Section 30 of the Act, read with Rule 54 of the Rules.

(3.) AS an alternative remedy by many of revision prescribed by the same law under which the lease was grated to the petitioner is open to him against the impugned order of the state Government dated April 28 1978 the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Clauses (3) of Article 226 of the constitution of India the writ partition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.