Judgement

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. : This appeal, on certificate granted by the Rajasthan High Court, raises the question of the applicability of the provisions of Chapter IV and thereby of R. 30 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1955, hereinafter called the rules, to the grants of mining leases under the provisions of Chapter V of the rules.

2. The facts leading to this appeal are briefly these. The respondent obtained the mining lease for extracting sand-stone from the mines in certain area from the Government of Rajasthan in 1956. The lease was granted as a result of auction. The period of the lease was from April 1, 1956 to July 31, 1959. The respondent applied for extension of the period upto two years in view of the mandatory nature of the main provision of R. 30 and simultaneously also applied for the renewal of the lease for a further period in accordance with the provisions of the proviso to R. 30. The first prayer was refused and the State Government extended the period of the lease at first by six months and later by another two months. The respondent thereafter filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court and prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the striking down of the order of the Government renewing the lease for 8 months and directing the State of Rajasthan further to extend the lease in the first instance for two years from July 30, 1959 to bring it in conformity with the period of lease specified in R. 30 and to renew, after the expiry of such extended period, for a further period of 5 years under R. 30 of the rules. The State of Rajasthan, appellant, contested the petition on the ground that the provisions of Chapter IV of the rules did not apply to the grant of mining leases by auction or tender provided for by Chapter V of the rules and that in any case the initial period short of 5 years must be deemed to have been at the desire of the respondent and that any further extension of the period of the lease under the proviso was in the discretion of the Government and, consequently, the respondent could not claim to have the period of the lease extended for a period of 5 years.

3. The High Court held that the provisions of Chapter IV of the rules were applicable as far as possible to the grant of mining leases by auction under Chapter V, that though the State Government had to give a lease for 5 years in view of R. 30, yet the shorter period of the lease in favour of the respondent must, in the circumstances, be deemed to have been at his request and that the respondent was entitled to an extension of the lease by a further period of 5 years in accordance with the provisions of the proviso. It, therefore, directed the State Government to renew the lease for a period of 5 years from the expiry of the original lease with option of further renewal, if so desired, by another period of 5 years subject to the conditions mentioned in R. 30. It is against this order that this appeal has been filed.

4. Two questions are raised for the appellant in this Court. The first is that the provisions of Chapter IV of the rules do not govern the grant of mining leases by auction under the provisions of Chapter V of the rules. The other is that the proviso to R. 30 give discretion to the State Government to extend the period of the lease for any period not exceeding 5 years and that it is not mandatory that the State Government must extend the lease by a period of 5 years as held by the High Court. We are of opinion that the High Court has come to a right conclusion on these two points.

5. Section 5 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 (Act LIII of 1948) empowered the Central Government to make rules, by notification in the official Gazette, for regulating the grant of mining leases or for prohibiting the grant of such leases in respect of any mineral in any area. In the exercise of its power the Central Government framed the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949