KRISHNA MURARI GOYAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two writ petitions involve similar questions of law and facts, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) FACTS in writ petition No. 825 of 1981 are that a notification was published in Rajasthan Gazette dated 23. 10. 1969 by Assistant Mining Engineer, Alwar inviting persons to bid in auction for the plots for mining lease. The appellant Kishan Murari was granted mining lease by order dated 8. 1. 1970 on annual dead rent of Rs. 1001 for a period of five years. The formal deed of lease agreement was executed on 20. 2. 1985. The appellant was granted renewal of the lease for a further period of five years on double the amount of dead rent i. e. Rs. 2002 per year. The Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 were repealed and the Rajasthan Minor Min- eral Concession Rules, 1977 (hereinafter to be referred to as `the Rules of 1977) were promulgated with effect from 10. 6. 1977. In pursuance of the Rules of 1977the State Government vide order dated 20. 6. 1978 extended the period of lease in place of 20. 2. 1975 to 20. 2. 1980 to 20. 2. 1975 to 19. 2. 1985 i. e. for a period of ten years with the condition that the dead rent would be revised after every five years. The State of Rajasthan vide its order dated 9. 3. 1981 revised the annual dead rent w. e. f. 20. 2. 1980 from Rs. 2002 to Rs. 1,91,951.

(3.) THE aforesaid decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. M/s. Harishanker Rajendrapal (6), wherein it has been held that Chapter IV of the rules deals with grant of mining leases and consists of Rules 19 to 32, Chapter V deals with grant of mining leases and royalty collection contracts by auction or by inviting tenders or by other methods and consists of Rules 33 to 42. A comparison of provisions of the rules in Chapter IV and those in Chapter V shows that all the incidents for grant of a mining lease contemplated and provided for in Chapter IV are not provided for in Chapter V. For the aforesaid reason Chapter IV was made applicable to the leases given in Chapter V. THE court was not required to consider as to what shall be the dead rent at the time of initial grant of mining lease by auction or by inviting tenders or at the time of its renewal because there was specific provision for fixation of dead rent at the time of initial grant under Rule 33 (2) of the Rules of 1955 providing for determination of dead rent more than as prescribed in Schedule II to the rules and no rule like Rule 21 of the Rules of 1977 providing for determination of dead rent at the time of renewal. THE Apex Court has said that matters not provided for by the rules in Chapter V with regard to mining leases will be covered by provisions relating to those matters in Chapter IV since these provisions deal with the essential incidents affecting grant of mining leases. THE court was not considering provision like Rule 21 which provides for determi- nation of dead rent at the stage of initial grant and also at the time of renewal excluding applicability of Schedule II of the Rules of 1977.