Honble YADAV, J. – Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for quashing the order dated 19.10.1987 Annx. 3 to the writ petition passed by the Tehsildar, Bhinmal District Jalore (respondent No.3).

(2) Facts of the present case are not disputed upto this extent that the petitioner was granted a short term permit under Rule 63 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 1986) by the Mining Engineer, Sirohi for extracting and removing 200 tonnes of earth clay from Khasra No. 261 of village Tawab, District Jalore for which he had paid Rs. 300/- at the rate of Rs. 1.50 per ton, a photstat whereof is filed and marked as Annx. 1 to the writ petition.

(3). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. M.L. Shreemali as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 Mr. R.L. Jangid and learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 Mr. S.K. Vyas.

(4). It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. M. L. Shreemali that it is inconceivable that a person who has been granted short term permit under Rule 63 of the Rules of 1986 to quarry the brick earth has no right to construct the kiln to utilize the mineral for the purposes of making bricks. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in case of Shiv Chand vs. State of Raj. (1).

(5). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 Mr. R.L. Jangid strenuously urged before me that short term permit dated 10.2.87 Annx. 1 to the writ petition was issued by the Mining Department which did not authorise the petitioner to use clay for the purpose of making bricks but it was subject to the provisions contained under Sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 89 of Land Revenue Act.

(6). Argument advanced by Mr. R.L. Jangid, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 is adopted by Mr. S.K. Vyas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3.

(7). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar and also examined the materials available on record.

(8). I am of the view that the provisions envisaged under Sub- sec. (7) of Sec. 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act have nothing to do with the mining lease granted to the petitioner in the present case. I am not able to subscribe the view that the power of granting lease to the petitioner vide Annx. 1 for minor mineral removing the clay by the Mining Department is subject to the provisions of Sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, which provides that any person who without lawful authority extracts or removes minerals from any mine or quarry, the right to which vests in and has not been assigned by the State Government shall without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him, he would be liable on the order in writing of the Collector to pay penality not exceeding a sum calculated at the rate of Rs. 50/- per ton or a portion thereof of the minerals so extracted or removed. An explanation is also added to the aforesaid Sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 89 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, which reads thus :–

``Explanation – In this Section minerals include any sand or clay, which the State Government may declare to have a commercial value or to be required for any public purpose.

(9). In my considered opinion, the grant of a mining lease is a concern of the Government or the officers of the Mines and Geological Department as specified in Schedule III and such mining lease can be granted to the petitioner under the Rules of 1986 and grant of such lease is not subject to any other law. The mandatory provision contemplated under Sec. 19 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1957) leads towards an irresistible conclusion that there is a clear bar for grant of minerals in any other manner except under the Rules of 1986 ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document