The court emphasized the importance of timely completion of formalities for mining leases and the need for proper service of notices to the concerned parties.

1. This petition seeks to challenge order of respondent No.3 Mining Engineer, Department of Mines and Geology, Rajasthan, Sikar, dated 14-3-2008 (Annexure-6) by which mining lease granted to petitioner was revoked and subsequent order dated 6-8-2008 (Annexure-8) of the Government dismissing his Revision No. 55/2008 filed there against.

2. Shri Anoop Dhand, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that mining lease was granted in favour of petitioner vide order dated 10-8-2007, but its copy was never served on him. It was for the first time that a notice dated 8-2-2008 came to be served on his father on 15-2-2008. According to Rule 19(1) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short, the Rules of 1986), where the lease has been granted or renewed under these Rules, the grantee shall pay demarcation fee, get the area demarcated, deposit the security along with one quarterly installment of annual dead-rent and submit requisite stamps for execution of formal lease deed in Form No.5 within 45 days from the date of receipt of order for grant. It is contended that even from the date of service of aforesaid notice i.e. 15-2-2008, if 45 days are counted, this period expired on 31st March, 2008, whereas the respondents cancelled the mining lease i.e. in less than a period of one month on 14-3-2008. Learned counsel submitted that the order of grant of mining lease dated 10-8-2007 was never served earlier either upon petitioner or any of his family members. The revisional authority has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter.

3. Shri Zakir Hussain, learned Additional Government Counsel, opposed the writ petition and submitted that proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1986 provides that if the grantee applies before expiry of 45 days specified in sub-rule (1) for extension of time for completing the formalities mentioned therein, the competent authority may allow further time not exceeding three months subject to payment of penalty at the rate of 9% of annual dead rent for every month of delay or part thereof. If the petitioner caused delay in getting the lease-deed executed by not producing the same within time, it was for him to approach the competent authority for extension of time for completing the formalities, which exercise has not been undertaken by him. The competent authority was fully justified in canceling the mining lease.

4. Perusal of impugned order as also order of revisional authority do not indicate that order of grant of mining lease dated 10-8-2007 was ever served on petitioner or any of his family members. The notice dated 8-2-2008 requiring the petitioner to remove the deficiencies and produce the requisite stamps etc. for execution of mining lease, was served on his father for the first time on 15-2-2008. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 19 provides that the grantee shall pay demarcation fee, get the area demarcated, deposit the security along-with one quarterly installment of annual dead-rent and submit requisite stamps for execution of formal lease deed in Form No.5 within 45 days from the date of receipt of order for grant. It is not therefore that the period of 45 days shall be counted from the date of issue of grant. It is the date of service, which is crucial for computing the period of 45 days. Contention of learned Additional Government Counsel that petitioner should have applied for extension of time, cannot be accepted because respondents themselves cancelled the lease-deed on 14-3-2008 i.e. on 27th day from the date of service of communication on 15-2-2008 of the notice dated 8-2-2008. They were expected to wait till expiry of 45 days. Their action in canceling the lease therefore cannot be sustained in law, being illegal, unreasonable and arbitrary. The impugned order of cancellation of mining lease dated 14-3-2008 and order dated 6-8-2008 dismissing the revision petition, both are set aside. Writ petition is allowed. Petitioner is now required to approach the respondents w