MANJU SINGH MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order dated 23rd March, 1996 [Ann.2] whereby sanction letter for allotment of quarry licence dated 6th April, 1995 was revoked and the revision preferred under R.47 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 was also rejected vide order dated 15th December, 1998.

(2.) Mining Engineer, Bijolia after delineating the plots at Village Sukhpura, issued a notification on 16th March, 1994 inviting application for grant of quarry licence. In all, 52 applications were received including application of petitioner in respect of Block No.75 and accordingly, lottery was drawn in accordance with R.27(3) of Rules, 1986. Name of petitioner emerged from the lottery drawn and thereafter sanction letter was issued to her on 6th April, 1995 [Ann.R/1]. However, in the order itself, it was mentioned that the petitioner has to deposit rent of block @Rs.5,000/- and annual security @Rs.1250/- within a period of 15 days from the date of order and after demarcation of the area concerned by Mines Foreman, she may get permanent pillars installed and after making compliance, she was required to obtain quarry licence from the office of the respondents. Since the petitioner did not comply with the conditions of sanction order, a notice was issued on 20th June, 1995 [Ann.R/2] requiring to comply with the conditions of sanction order and to obtain quarry licence from their office. However, the petitioner deposited quarry licence fee on 20th July, 1995, but as alleged by the respondents that she did not collect quarry licence from the office of respondents despite notice was issued to her even after six months of earlier notice on 22nd December, 1995 [Ann.R/3] and since the petitioner failed to collect the quarry licence despite opportunity afforded, the respondents finally passed order revoking the sanction letter issued to her vide order dated 23rd March, 1996 and revision preferred by her against the order revoking sanction was also rejected by the revisional authority.

(3.) Counsel for petitioner submits that so far as demarcation of area under quarry licence is concerned, it was the requirement under R.25 to be fixed by the Mining Engineer. As such, in absence of proper demarcation of area under quarry licence, the respondents could not be said to be justified in revoking the letter of sanction issued in her favour. Apart from it, counsel further submits that reasonable opportunity of hearing was not afforded to her which was required under law and letter of sanction has been arbitrarily revoked by the respondents vide order dated 23rd March, 1996. Counsel further submits that since it has come on record that quarry licence for Block No.75, of which sanction at one point of time issued to her on 26th April, 1995, still is lying vacant and has also not been declared as free-hold so far. No prejudice will be caused to the respondents, if licence is now issued to her in compliance of letter of sanction Ann.1.