ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH)

1. Present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.3.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.15541 of 2012.

2. The case in brief is that the appellant – original petitioner was granted lease with regard to mining of limestone on 22.11.1975. The lease deed was executed on 14.4.1978 with respect to the land bearing Survey No.133/1 admeasuring 16.59.22 hectors at village Inaj, Taluka – Veraval, District – Junagadh. Since the lease which was granted was about to be expired, the appellant had applied for renewal of said mining lease on 11.10.1996.

2.1 As per the say of the appellant, by virtue of effect of Rule 24(A) of the Mineral Concession Rules,1960, more particularly proviso to Sub-Rule (3) provides that in case the report is not received from Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines within a period of 3 months of receipt of communication from the State Government, it would be deemed that Indian Bureau of Mines had no adverse comment to be offered with respect to grant of renewal of mining lease. The State Government, however, stated to have not observed the relevant Rules and as such, the period of lease shall be deemed to have been extended by further period the State Government passes an order. According to the appellant, on 25.8.2004 after almost a period of 8 years, a request for renewal came to be refused mainly on the ground that appellant has not cleared the pending dues .

2.2 Feeling aggrieved by the said decision dated 25.8.2004, the appellant filed Revision Petition under Section 30 of the Act read with Rule 54 of the Rules and the Revisional Authority vide order dated 25.3.2010 was pleased to direct the authority to reconsider the case of the appellant with observations contained in Para.9. Since the Revisional Authority had expressed its view that if the dues are cleared, the request deserves consideration and, therefore, the State had to file a petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No.15822 of 2010, challenging the said order passed by the Revisional Authority. Said petition came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13.1.2011. In the meantime, the appellant had paid the dues which remained outstanding with regard to the royalty; interest of royalty and dead rent but, there was some difference with regard to the payment of interest to the extent of Rs.91,629/-.

2.3 According to the appellant, since the State had not provided the grace period as contemplated under Rule 64(A) of the Mineral Concession Rules,1960, the appellant filed a detailed representation on 17.10.2011 along with necessary details but, no attention was paid to. Resultantly, the appellant was constrained to prefer a Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No.17097 of 2011, for seeking direction upon the authority to execute the renewal of lease as prayed for. The respondent – State, by that time, preferred Letters Patent Appeal against an order dated 13.1.2011 which was passed in Special Civil Application No.15822 of 2010 and as such, the later petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 10.2.2012 and while disposing of the said Writ Petition No.17097 of 2011 filed by the appellant, the Court was pleased to direct the respondent to consider and decide renewal of lease as expeditiously as possible, within a time schedule.

2.4 Later on, according to the appellant, instead of considering the request, a notice was issued on 16.4.2012 calling upon the appellant to submit the documents, though already supplied and thereby, the State made an attempt to overreach the process. According to the appellant, several documents along with the application as well as on affidavit had been supplied and there was no valid reason for discarding the request of the appellant. But instead, the authority went on issuing notices one after the other and lastly, on 31.5.2012