(1 of 3)

[CW-18580/2019]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18580/2019

Purshotam Lal Kandhari S/o Shri Devi Das Kandhari, R/o 115,

Mahaveer Nagar, Udaipur Through Power Of Attorney Holder

Shanti Lal Jain S/o Shri Kanhaya Lal Ji Jain, Age About 51 Years,

R/o 4 A, Adarsh Colony Pula, Udaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary To

The Government Of Rajasthan, Mines Department, Jaipur,

Rajasthan.

2.

The Joint Secretary To The Government Of Rajasthan,

Mines Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3.

The Additional Director Mines, Mines Department,

Udaipur.

4.

The Director, Mines And Geology Department (Rajasthan),

Udaipur.

5.

The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,

Udaipur, Rajasthan.

6.

The Supre. Mining Engineer, Mines Department, Udaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Arvind Vyas.

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

24/01/2020

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the order dated 5.3.2014 (Annex.10), whereby, the

application filed by the petitioner for renewal of the mining lease

has been rejected.

It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner

was granted mining lease in relation to minerals Asbestos and

Soapstone. Subsequent thereto, the consent to operate for

(2 of 3)

[CW-18580/2019]

mineral Soapstone only was granted by the Rajasthan State

Pollution Control Board i.e. the same was confined to excavation of

Soapstone.

After initial lease period expired, the petitioner applied for

renewal of the lease, however, by order dated 5.3.2014 inter alia

indicating that as excavation of Asbestos has been banned and

Soapstone cannot be excavated independent of Asbestos, the

renewal was declined.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that

now the Soapstone has been notified as a minor mineral and the

area in question may be placed for auction for the mineral

Soapstone and, therefore, now the petitioner has filed the present

writ petition after passage of over 5 years seeking to question the

validity of order dated 5.3.2014.

Submissions have also been made that in Rule 9 of

Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (‘MMCR’), the

provision for renewal is that the existing leases would stand

renewed for 50 years and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to

get the lease deed renewed.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the petitioner and have perused the material available on

record.

The order impugned was passed on 5.3.2014, whereby,

renewal was denied to the petitioner. The petitioner apparently

was not aggrieved by the said order and has accepted the same,

inasmuch as, the said order was not challenged by the petitioner

at the relevant time.

(3 of 3)

[CW-18580/2019]

Filing of the present writ petition by indicating a cause that

as the mineral Soapstone has been notified as a mineral mineral

and the area in question may be placed for auction at some future

date and, therefore, the petitioner now has a grievance qua the

order dated 5.3.2014, which could be challenged any time, cannot

be countenanced.

Cause of action, if any, to the petitioner was in the year

2014. Having not questioned the validity of the order at the

relevant time, the challenge now sought to be laid based on the

mineral policy, cannot be accepted.

The plea raised based on provisions of Rule 9 of MMCR also

has no substance as the MMCR came into force in the year 2017,

while the lease had already expired and renewal denied in 2014

and the said Rule has no application to the expired leases.

In view of the above discussion, no case for interference is

made out in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

14-Sumit/-