RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Charles Dickens' novel Oliver Twist, Oliver made the fatal mistake of asking the In-charge of the orphanage for a second helping of soup. Oliver Twist was castigated for his audacity. Similarly, in the present case the petitioner has audaciously requested for the renewal of his mining licence. He has suffered the same fate. Vide order dated 10-8-2007, the petitioner's application for renewal of mining lease has not only been rejected, but security amount has also been forfeited. Like poor Oliver Twist, the petitioner is also hoping that he will see better days ahead.

(2.) This petition involves very short controversy, namely, whether the respondents are justified in rejecting an application for renewal of mining lease without following the procedure established in Rule 26 of the Mineral Concessions Rules,1960 ('the Rules' for short) or not Since the controversy is very short, only the bare facts are narrated herein below.

(3.) A year before the lease period was to end, on 14-7-2004, the petitioner applied for renewal of the lease-deed. However, instead of objectively considering the petitioner's application, the respondents No. 3, 5 and 6 started threatening the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6908/2005. Vide order dated 31-8-2005, this Court granted an interim stay in the petitioner's favour and directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to operate the mines and to excavate silica sand upto capacity of 80 MT per day.