IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the authority to grant relaxation in mining lease transfer is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a right, emphasizing the binding nature of prior rejection orders.

JUDGMENT :

DINESH MEHTA, J.

1. The petitioner, a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 is engaged in manufacture and sale of white cement. At the time of establishment of its unit at Gotan, District Nagaur, the petitioner had purchased 4 sq. km land from the existing lessee - Gotan Limestone Khanij Udhyog (GLKU) for which, the lessee had taken prior consent from the State as required under rule 15 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1986’).

2. The same lessee (GLKU) entered into another agreement dated 01.11.1995 with the petitioner to transfer 2.041738 sq. km. or 204.1738 hectare of land out of total leasehold area of 10 sq. km.

3. The said lessee (GLKU) in turn moved an application dated 31.01.1997 and prayed that 204.1738 hectare land be allowed to be transferred to the petitioner for its captive use. In the application aforesaid, it was stated that the firm had received a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs towards investment already made for the development of the mine.

4. The aforesaid application came to be rejected by the Director (Mines) by order dated 11.08.1997, as according to him, there is no provision for part transfer under the Rules of 1986.

5. The petitioner (and not the lessee), preferred a revision petition against the above referred order dated 11.08.1997 passed by the Director (Mines) contending that the powers of relaxation be exercised, while highlighting that the State Government had granted relaxation to various applicants and even in petitioner’s own case such relaxation was granted.

6. The revisional authority-Deputy Secretary to the Mining Department allowed the said revision petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 02.12.1997 and remanded the matter back to the Director (Mines) with a direction to send a proposal for grant of consent for part transfer with corresponding proposal for relaxing the Rules.

7. It appears that after passing of the above order dated 02.12.1997, various correspondences took place between the petitioner and the State Government. The office of Mining Department - the Superintending Engineer sent a communication dated 11.03.2002 to the State Government inter-alia recommending that since the petitioner is in dire need of high grade limestone, it would be appropriate to grant relaxation in exercise of powers under rule 65 of the Rules of 1986. It was mentioned in the letter that the State Government had given consent for part transfer of mining lease to the petitioner on earlier occasion.

8. It is pertinent to note that while making above recommendation, the Superintending Engineer made a clear reference of an order dated 27.01.1999 and stated that the State has rejected proposal for relaxation by invoking powers under rule 65 of the Rules of 1986 to relax the Rules.

9. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has neither made a reference of such order nor has it placed a copy of said order on record. The petitioner has nevertheless, placed on record a series of correspondence between the petitioner and various officers of the Mining Department in order to show that the petitioner has kept its cause of part transfer of 2.04 sq. km land alive (pursuant to the application dated 31.01.1997).

10. In the meanwhile, the mining lease No. 45 of 1993 which was in the name of partnership firm M/s. Gotan Limestone Khanij Udhyog was allowed to be transferred to a new entity - Gotan Limestone Khanij Udhyog Pvt. Ltd (respondent no. 8) vide order dated 25.04.2012.

11. On coming to know of the factum of mining lease being transferred, the petitioner moved a representation dated 16.08.2012 before the Assistant Mining Engineer, Gotan and prayed that the mining lease be not transferred to the newly formed private limited company, as it would adversely affect its rights to get mining rights qua 2.04 sq. km. land pursuant to the order dated 02.12.1997 passed by the State Government.

12. Meanwhile, the predecessor firm of the res