Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN BHANSALI, YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT, JJ.
Kamal Kant Jain S/o Shri Moti Lal Jain – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 882 of 2007
Decided On : 23-02-2023
Rajasthan Minor Mineral concession Rules, 1986 - Rule 47, 18 (21), 17 - Mining lease was cancelled - Lease was in currency - Questioning validity of order - Petition filed questioning validity of order passed whereby, mining lease of appellant was cancelled & renewal application was rejected – Mining lease was in currency on date and as such, submission made in this regard has no substance.
Finding of the Court :
Bare look at order passed reveals that authority has cancelled mining lease and rejected renewal application, which necessarily means that mining lease was in currency on said date and as such, submission made in this regard has no substance - Aspect of withdrawal of the suit on the same issue apparently was not brought to notice of learned Single Judge and on account of subsequent developments, whereby demand raised against appellant has been quashed and on re-determination it has been bound that nothing was due against appellant and fact that provisions of Rule 18(21) of Rules, 1986 were not followed by respondents while passing order rejecting revision petition orders impugned cannot be sustained - Order passed by learned Single Judge is set aside.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ARUN BHANSALI, J.
1. This special appeal is directed against the order dated 10.8.2007 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7367/2006, whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant-petitioner inter alia questioning the validity of the order dated 7.1.2003 passed by the Additional Director (Mines), Udaipur Zone, Udaipur, whereby, the mining lease of the appellant-petitioner was cancelled and the renewal application was rejected and order dated 20.9.2006 passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Mines, rejecting the revision petition filed by the appellant under Rule 47 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral concession Rules, 1986 (‘the Rules 1986’).
3. It is inter-alia indicated in the petition that the mining lease for mineral marble was allotted to the appellant-petitioner on 9.2.1982 and the agreement in this regard was executed on 10.5.1982, which was registered on 3.8.1982. After working the mine during the lease period, the appellant-petitioner submitted an application for renewal of the mining lease on 5.12.1991. On account of retrospective revision of dead rent, the respondents demanded a sum of Rs. 1,55,830/- from the appellant-petitioner as dead rent, validity whereof was challenged by the appellant-petitioner by filing SBCWP No. 2672/2000, which came to be allowed by order dated 17.7.2001, holding that the revision of dead rent could not have been made with retrospective effect. Based on the said judgment, the revised demand was raised by the respondents, validity of which was also challenged by the appellant-petitioner by filing SBCWP No. 4773/2001, which was pending at the time of filing of present special appeal. Notice was sent by the respondents for payment of dead rent on 7.3.2002 to the tune of Rs. 3,90,377/- which remained pending.
4. The Addl. Director (Mines) vide his impugned order dated 7.1.2003 noticing the fact of non-payment of demand amounting to Rs. 3,90,377/- in terms of the proposal of the Assistant Mining Engineer, Banswara, cancelled the mining lease and rejected the application for renewal while forfeiting the application fee.
5. Feeling aggrieved the appellant-petitioner filed a civil suit in the court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Banswara, wherein, by way of interim order, the appellant-petitioner was permitted to excavate the mineral. Simultaneously, the appellant-petitioner preferred revision petition before the Deputy Secretary, who by its order dated 20.9.2006 came to the conclusion that in the pending Writ Petition No. 4773/2001 as there is no interim order and the amount of demand has not been deposited, cancellation of mining lease and rejection of renewal was justified.
6. Whereafter, the appellant-petitioner moved an application in the pending suit seeking withdrawal of the suit with liberty to question the validity of the order dated 7.1.2003 and revisional order dated 20.9.2006, which withdrawal was permitted by the trial court on 14.11.2006.
7. Whereafter, the writ petition was filed before this Court. When the writ petition came up before the Court for admission, the learned Single Judge while noticing the contention on behalf of the appellant-petitioner that as the petitioner has already deposited the entire dead rent and, therefore, the revisional authority should have restored the mining lease in favour of the petitioner, came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 4,34,478/- was due against the appellant-petitioner and only a sum of Rs. 93,000/- has been deposited, which cannot be treated as deposit of entire due amount and by observing that the issue in question before the revisional authority is also pending consideration before the civil court, upheld the rejection of revision petition on account of pendency of suit and consequently rejected the writ petition in limine.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that rejection of the writ petition by
Rule 18 (21) of Rules, 1986, which provide for alternate consequences of breach of conditions of lease.
The court emphasized the necessity for authorities to follow procedural rules before canceling mining leases, allowing alternative penalties rather than outright cancellations.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements in administrative actions, particularly the right to a hearing and jurisdictional limits post-mineral classification changes.
The cancellation of the mining lease was found to be in accordance with the statutory provision of Rule 25(5) of the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.
Rule stated that any order passed in appeal, aggrieved party shall file a revision petition before competent authority, within period as stipulated.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
