Renewal of a mining lease is a discretionary right, contingent on fulfilling mandatory conditions; failure to comply justifies rejection of applications.

ORDER :

Sameer Jain, J.

The instant petition is filed against the order impugned dated 07.01.2011 passed by the Central Government whereby the revision application filed by the petitioner under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 against the order dated 09.12.2007, as passed by the State Government, was dismissed.

2. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. A.K. Sharma, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the order impugned is wholly contrary to and/or inconsistent with the applicable facts, law and material on record, thereby is liable to be quashed and set aside. In order to substantiate upon the said claim, it was submitted that the petitioner's renewal application was dismissed on account of merely procedural shortcomings, which cannot be considered to be valid grounds of rejection, as the same can be rectified subsequent to the grant of renewal, having made the said renewal contingent upon the fulfilment of the noted deficiencies. In this regard, reliance was placed upon Rule 22 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter, Rules of 1960). In support of the submissions made herein-above, learned counsel relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in AIR 1952 SC 16.

3. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. R.P. Singh, appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that the Central Government, while dismissing the revision application of the petitioner, has passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of material aspects, arrived at a logical conclusion. In support of the said claim, it was submitted that as per Rule 24A of the Rules of 1960, the application for renewal has to be filed in a specific format, within a stipulated time. Moreover, the said application for renewal inherently carries with it the furnishing of several approvals and/or documents, such as the mining plan, financial assurance and forest clearance, which were not procured and thereby, not produced/submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that renewal of a mining lease cannot be claimed as a right, as the renewal rests within the discretion of the Central as well State Government, subject to the fulfilment of the requisite and mandatory terms and conditions by the party seeking the said renewal. Hence, relying upon the submissions made herein-above, learned Additional Advocate General averred that the order impugned is wholly justified and as a result, does not call for any interference of this Court.

4. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides, scanned the record of the petition and perused the judgments cited at Bar.

5. Preceding to the discussion on merits, this Court deems it fit to concisely note the germane factual considerations, instrumental for the efficacious disposal of the instant petition. They are noted as under:-

5.1 That the petitioner-Shri. Modi Mineral Grinding Mills Pvt. Ltd. was granted mining lease for the mineral 'dolomite' by the State Government of Rajasthan for an area encompassing 259 hectares in Neem Ka Thana, Sikar. The duration of the said lease was 20 years commencing from 27.10.1977.

5.2 That being desirous of renewal of the mining lease in toto, the petitioner applied for the grant of first renewal on 06.08.1996. However, in lieu of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well this Court, vide orders dated 12.12.1996 and 16.05.2004, the petitioner vide letter dated 08.05.2006, reduced the area for renewal of mining lease to an area encompassing 23.89 hectares only.

5.3 That the State Government issued a notice d