ORDER

Rusia, J:-- 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 7.4.2022 passed by the Mining Officer, Collectorate, District – Ujjain, whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit dead rent for the year, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 before execution of a deed for renewal of the lease.

2. The facts of the case in short are under:-

2.1. The petitioner was having a mining lease for the Government land bearing Survey No.942 area of 3.600 hectares situated at Village & Tehsil – Ghatia, District – Ujjain. The petitioner applied for renewal of the lease for another 10 years vide application dated 16.5.2018 to the Mining Brach of Collectorate, District – Ujjain. A decision has been taken for renewal of the lease for the area admeasuring 3.600 hectares for the period of 10 years from the year 1.1.2019. Vide letter dated 20.1.2021, the petitioner was directed to comply with provisions of rule 42 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (in short the Rules of 1996). Vide order dated 12.1.2022, the Director of Mining Department has approved for execution of sanction under rule 6 & 18(2) of the Rules of 1996 for grant of lease for a period of 10 years from 1.1.2019 subject to compliance of the amended provisions of the Rules of 1996 (22.1.2022).

2.2. Now vide order dated 7.4.2022, the petitioner has been called upon to execute an agreement with the deposit receipt of dead rent for the years, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

3. Shri Manohar Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no such provision of charging dead rent from the prospective leaseholder under the provisions of the Rules of 1996 for the period when there was no lease. Even otherwise, there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in submitting an application for renewal. The renewal was withheld by the State Government due to the pendency of 53 writ petitions before the Full Bench of M.P. High Court. After the decision given by the Full Bench on 21.9.2020, the Additional Secretary, Mining Department vide letter dated 27.11.2020 directed all the Collectors, Mining Branch to initiate a process to decide the pending applications for renewal of the lease. Therefore, it is not a case where the petitioner did not operate the lease to make him liable to pay the dead rent. The Government was not taking any decision in respect of renewal because of the pendency of the matter before the Full Bench of this High Court, hence, the petitioner cannot be compelled to deposit the dead rent from the year 2019 to 2022 before the execution of the agreement for lease.

4. Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents / State submits that as per rule 30 of the Rules of 1996, the petitioner is liable to pay lease rent which is a condition precedent for grant of quarry lease or renewal of the lease. Rule 30(1)(a) of the Rules of 1996 specifically provides that the lessee shall pay for every year a dead rent at the rates specified in Schedule IV in the advance for the whole year on or before the 20th day of the first month of the year. Rule 30(1)(b) also provides that the lessee shall pay the dead rent or royalty in respect of each mineral whichever is higher in amount but not both. Since there was no extraction of minerals, hence, no royalty was paid to the State for these four years, hence, under Rule 30(b) of the Rules of 1996, the dead rent is liable to be paid to compensate for the nonpayment of the royalty. It has further been submitted by the learned Government Advocate that under Secretary of the State Government vide letter dated 9.5.2022 has clarified that all the taxes, royalty and rent are liable to be paid before execution of mining lease agreement / renewal. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Shri Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioner is relying upon a judgment delivered in the case of King Pal Sin