D.Raju, C J. : These writ petitions, namely, C.W.Ps. No. 506,517, 519, 520, 521, 523 and 524 of 1998, are dealt with together since they raise identical issues except certain deviations in respect of individual factual details which do not matter for the manner of consideration required, and also for the fact that the learned counsel appearing on either side had also made common submissions highlighting the facts in only one case for the appreciation of the issues raised. C.W.P.No.506 of l99R In mis writ petition, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari seeking to quash the order of the second respondent Director of Industries, Shimla, dated 18.7.1998 recalling with, immediate effect the grant of Mining Lease made by the proceeding date 6.11.1997 for collection of Sand. Stone and Bajri from Khasra No. 61 and 254/60, measuring 483-16, situated at Mauja Satiwala and Bheral, Tehsil Paonta, District Sirmaur, HP. and for a consequential direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner in terms of the grant order dated 6.11.1997.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was granted with a lease of the very quarry in question in the year 1995 for a period of one year, that thereafter he was working the quarry by obtaining the short term permits and that pursuant to an application (undated) for the grant of mining lease, after following the procedure prescribed therefore by an order dated 6.11.199.7 the second respondent has granted the mining case under Himachal Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Revised Rules, 1971 (hereinafter re- fared to a Minor Mineral Roles) subject to die terms and conditions as also in consideration of die amount payable as specified therein. The petitioner further claims that one of the conditions of the grant is mat he shall execute the mining lease deed on non-judicial stamp papers worth Rs. 480/- in Form ‘F’ and submit five copies of the same along with revised revenue map of the area duly complete in all respects to the second respondent The petitioner claims that on 19.12.1997 he purchased the required stamp papers, got the lease deed engrossed thereon and submitted the same on 20.12.1997 and thereby discharged his part of obligation in this regard. Notwithstanding all this and the efforts taken, according to the petitioner the respondents, particularly, the second respondent has not carried out their part of the obligations and has chosen to pass the impugned order dated 18.7.1998 recalling the grant earlier made due to non-execution of the mining lease deed under Rule 19 of the Minor Mineral Rules within the stipulated time and for the reason that the relaxation from the rigour of the rule has been disallowed by the State and, therefore, cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner. According to the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner had adhered to all the conditions stipulated in the grant order, that he had invested huge amounts for putting mineral based industry, mat is, stone crusher, mat the amount of payment of minimum royalty assured is on the previous auction bid with 30% annual increase which has to be fixed by the Mining Officer, Nahan with such increase every year, that his application being the first, he was entitled to the grant of mining lease as per rule of priority, mat die applicants who made claims latter did not made any competitive offer of rates more than the petitioner and mat after the submission of the lease deed on 20.12.1997 a common representative m respect of all the six cases relating to the grant in Giri and Yamuna River areas have been representing for the completion of the formalities and despite subsequent personal approaches and representations made nothing was done on the side of the respondents and therefore, if at all it is only the respondents who are at fault and the petitioner could not be found fault with or fixed with any lapse in this regard and m