JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) IN the year 1992, the petitioner was granted a mining lease for slate stone in an area measuring 43.93 hectares of land in District Gurgaon. This would be approximately 868 kanals 7 marlas of land. The lease was for a period of five years which was to expire on June 29, 1997. On June 2, 1997, the petitioner applied for the renewal of the lease. Finding that no order had been passed, the petitioner approached this court through CWP No. 11038 of 1997. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. A reply was filed. It was inter alia pleaded that the petitioner's application for renewal was pending and that it shall be decided 'on merits'. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated August 26, 1997 with the direction to the respondents to decide the petitioner's case within two months. Vide order dated September 11, 1997, the Director, Mines and Geology rejected the petitioner's prayer for renewal of the lease. On January 7, 1999, the State of Haryana published a notice in the Government Gazette inviting applications for the grant of mining lease. On February 3, 1999, the petitioner approached this court through the present writ petition. He complains that his request for renewal of the lease has been wrongly rejected. He prays that the order dated September 11, 1997 be quashed and that the respondents be directed to renew the lease.
(2.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The claim made by the petitioner has been controverted. Counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. C.B. Goel, counsel for the petitioner has made a two-fold submission. Firstly, it has been contended that the order dated September 11, 1997 is vitiated as it is contrary to the undertaking that had been given to this court while filing a reply in CWP No. 11038 of 1997. Secondly, the counsel has submitted that the provisions of Rule 56 of the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 which permit the Government to relax the rigour of the statutory rules is violative of Article 14 as it permits the grant of relaxation in case of Government companies and corporations and not in others. On this basis, he prays that the writ petition should be allowed. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by Ms. Ritu Bahri, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(3.) THE two questions that arise for consideration are :- (i) Is the order dated September 11, 1997, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.5 with the writ petition contrary to the plea taken in the written statement that had been filed on belay of the respondents in CWP No. 11038 of 1997 ? (ii) Is Rule 56 ultra vires the Constitution ? ;