Amended provisions of Rule 7 mandated auction for quarry lease of flagstone, and prior court decisions were not applicable to the amended provisions.

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner takes exception to the orders passed by the appropriate Authorities dated 2-8-2013, 31-5-2014 and 8-12-2014 (Annexure-P/1, P/2 and P/3 respectively).

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was granted quarry lease of flagstone for area admeasuring 1.417 hectare khasra No. 2 at village Kanpora. The lease period commenced from 5-4-2009 up to 5 years i.e. 14-4-2014. By an application dated 6-12-2012, the petitioner requested the respondent No. 3 to consider his application for renewal of the said quarry lease. That application was, however, rejected by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 2-8-2013, principally on the ground that after the amendment to Rule 7(2) of the M. P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (in short "Rules of 1996"), the Government can grant quarry lease of flagstone only by way of auction. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said decision under Rule 57(2) of the Rules of 1996. That appeal was also rejected on 31-5-2014, whilst reiterating the reasons stated by the Collector for rejecting the application for renewal of lease. The petitioner then carried the matter before the respondent No. 2/Director, who in turn rejected the appeal vide order dated 8-12-2014 for the same reason. These orders are subject-matter of challenge in the present petition.

3. According to the petitioner, the amended provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996 cannot be invoked in the fact situation of the present case as the application for renewal of quarry lease was filed by him on 6-12-2012; whereas the amendment was brought into force after issuance of public notification published in the Official Gazette on 23-3-2013. Further, the amended provisions, in no way, preclude the Authorities from granting renewal of lease keeping in mind the power vested under Rules 17 and 18 of the Rules of 1996. It is then submitted that the question posed by the petitioner has been answered in favour of the petitioner by the Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 4682/2010 decided on 30-8-2011. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and instead the respondents be directed to grant renewal of quarry lease for further period as is permissible in terms of Rules 17 and 18 of the Rules of 1996.

4. The respondents, on the other hand, contend that the application for renewal of quarry lease, though submitted on 6-12-2012 was required to be decided as per the prevalent Rules when the same was considered by the Authorities. Further, since Rule 7 has been amended on 23-3-2013, no fault can be found with the approach of the Collector of having decided the application on the basis of said provisions vide order dated 2-8-2013 and for the same reason rejection of the appeals preferred by the petitioner before the superior Authorities.

5. Before we consider the scope of amendment to Rule 7, it is necessary to bear in mind that the factum of application for renewal of quarry lease made by the petitioner on 6-12-2012 will be of no avail. For, it is the well settled legal position that the right of the petitioner is only one of considerations of his application, and which, indeed, must be done in conformity with the Rules prevalent at the relevant time when the decision is taken by the appropriate Authority on such application. Thus, the fact that the petitioner had made application for renewal of quarry lease on 6-12-2012 does not take the matter any further. We will have to examine the claim of the petitioner in the context of the provisions in vogue when the decision was taken by the Collector on 2-8-2013; and moreso because quarry lease granted in favour of the petitioner was in force and subsisting till 14-4-2014.

6. Reverting to Rule 7, which is the fulcrum of the decision of the Collector, it is a provision defining the power to grant trade quarry situated in Government land. The Rule 7, as was in force, when the application was m