DAYA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questions of facts and law involved in all these petitions are analogous and, therefore, the order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1513/96 shall govern the other S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 1514/96 and 1515/96.

(2.) The brief facts in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1513/96 are that the petitioner submitted an application for grant of mining lease to the Mining Engineer, Rajsamand for plots Nos. 14, 15, 21 and 22 for mineral marble at an area situated near village Morwad inTehsil and District Rajsamand.The petitioner deposited the requisite application fees along with the application. The application submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the Mining Engineer, Rajsamand by order dated 5-9-1991 on the ground that the area in question is grazing land and thus, no mining lease can be granted. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Mining Engineer, preferred an appeal before the Addl. Director, Udaipur and submitted that there was no prohibition in granting mining lease to the petitioner and the impugned order was wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. The Addl. Director rejected the appeal. The petitioner preferred further appeal before the Govt. of Rajasthan. This appeal was also dismissed by order dated 6-12-93 by the Deputy Secretary. It was observed in the judgment that without the prior permission of the State Govt., no lease could be granted in view of Rule 4(5) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short 'the Rules' hereinafter) nor the mining department is competent to grant lease without such prior permission. Thus, the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that prior permission of the Revenue Department has not been obtained.

(3.) The petitioner being aggrieved by the order, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan challenging the order passed by the Govt. in appeal dated 6-12-1993. The writ petition was registered as S.B . Civil Writ Petition No. 1507/94. In that writ petition, it was mainly contended on behalf of the petitioner that the prohibition under Rule 4(5) of the Rules applies only in cases where a particular land is notified as reserved by the State Govt. for its own purpose or local bodies purpose or for any public or special purpose. It was further alleged that if the No Objection Certificate was required from the Revenue Department for grant of mining lease in grazing land, it was the duty of the Mining Department to forward the application of the petitioner to the Revenue Department for grant of necessary No Objection Certificate enabling the Mining Department to sanction the mining lease in favour of the petitioner for the area applied for by the petitioner. It is further alleged that persons similarly situated have been granted mining lease in the same area whereas the petitioner is being denied the equal treatment in not sanctioning the mining lease in favour of the petitioner. A prayer was made that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned orders passed by the Mining Engineer the Addl. Director and the Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan be quashed and set aside and further the respondents be directed to grant a mining lease for the area applied for by the petitioner without delay and to allow the petitioner to carry out the mining operation in accordance with law. It was prayed in the alternative that the respondents be directed to send the matter for approval/sanction/permission to the Revenue Department and the Revenue Department be directed to accord permission after hearing the petitioner.