JUDGMENT :

1) The present special writ appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 11.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9395/2018, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the Additional Director (Mines), Udaipur Zone, cancelling the application submitted by the appellant for grant of mining lease on the ground of non-compliance with the conditions prescribed under the notice dated 19.04.2017, was dismissed. The appellant also sought revival of the Letter of Intent (LOI) by prescribing time for compliance with the conditions mentioned in the letter dated 19.04.2017.

2) The background of the facts show that the appellant submitted an application dated 07.12.2012 for grant of mining lease for the major minerals, namely, Quartz and Feldspar, under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Subsequently, the appellant was granted a Letter of Intent. Later, by Notification dated 10.02.2015, the major minerals, namely, Quartz and Feldspar, were declared as minor minerals and became governed by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2015”) and the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1986”).

3) Further proceedings in pursuance to the Letter of Intent could not be progressed on account of the administrative ban imposed by the Ministry of Mines dated 17.10.2015. Meanwhile, the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2017”) came into force with effect from 01.03.2017. The Rules of 2017 protected the Letters of Intent granted prior to the commencement of the Act, 2015 and the Rules, 1986. However, the holder of the Letter of Intent is required to pay the difference in the application fee and the differential premium.

4) The respondents-authority, by notice dated 19.04.2017, directed the appellant to comply with the conditions prescribed therein within 30 days, failing which the application was proposed to be rejected. In compliance with the said notice, the appellant paid the difference in the application fee. However, he failed to pay the deficit/differential premium of Rs.1,54,063/-, though he complied with the other conditions. Consequently, on account of non-compliance with the substantial condition, the impugned order was passed rejecting the application of the appellant.

5) Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge, which came to be dismissed. Hence, the appellant has preferred the present special appeal.

6) The submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the appellant substantially complied with the conditions prescribed under the notice dated 19.04.2017, except for payment of the deficit premium of Rs.1,54,063/-. It is also his contention that before cancellation of the claim for grant of lease, the respondents ought to have issued a show-cause notice and thereafter, after taking into consideration the grievance of the appellant, passed the impugned order. According to him, the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice.

7) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the notice dated 19.04.2017 contained the conditions to be complied with as well as the period within which such compliance was required to be made. It was also specifically stated therein that failure to comply with the conditions would result in cancellation/rejection of the application. The appellant, therefore, had no right to seek any fresh opportunity of hearing before rejection of the application. According to him, all the prescribed procedures were followed while rejecting the application of the appellant. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge, having considered the matter in its entirety, has rightly dismissed the writ petition and the impugned order does not warrant any