SARJOO PROSAD, C. J. - (1.) THE petitioner, the Rajasthan Industrial Cooperative Society Ltd. , has prayed for a writ of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus or any other appropriate direction quashing the order of the State Government granting a lease in favour of the respondent No. 3, - THE Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. Ramganjmandi of lime stone mines in Tehsil Chechat and Ramganjmandi, covering an area of 4810, 16 Acres.
(2.) THE petitioner, which is a Cooperative Society, has its registered office at Ramganjmandi and claims to carry on business of quarry in that Tehsil. THE lime stone quarries situated in Ramganjmandi and Chechat Tehsil were admittedly given on grant on 2. 5. 45 by His Highness the former Ruler of Kotah State to the respondent No. 3 for working out these quarries for a period of 15 years, commencing from is October, 1944. It appears that after the merger of Kotah in the State of Rajasthan, the Government of Rajasthan cancelled the lease or grant in favour of the said respondent with effect from 2. 6. 1952 and ordered the respondent to hand over possession of the quarries within three months from the date. THE respondent No. 3, however, in spite of the service of the order, refused to deliver possession and instituted a suit against the State of Rajasthan for a declaration of his right as a lessee of the quarries in question and succeeded in obtaining a stay order from the Court of the learned District Judge at Kotah, where the suit was pending, restraining the State from taking possession of the quarries. THE petitioner alleges that on 13. 6. 50 he had applied for grant of lease of lime stone quarries situated in Suket, Kumbhkot and Satalkheri areas in Ramganjmandi Tehsil, but no action could be taken on that application since the State Government informed the petitioner that as the respondent No. 3 was the lessee in possession, the peti- doner's request could not be considered. THEreafter, on 27. 6. 59, the petitioner again applied to the Minister of Industries, a copy whereof was also served on the Director of Mines and Geology, Udaipur, for granting lease for quarrying lime stone in the mines of Satalkheri, Khumbhkot, Payali, Julami and Sahrawada in the Tehsils aforesaid. THE petitioner has referred to some correspondence which followed between it and the State Government on the subject of its application for lease. Eventually it was informed that it should contact the Director of Mines and Geology, Udaipur. THE petitioner also appears to have made an application to the Central Government with a copy to the Minister of Mines and Geology Government of Rajasthan, praying that preference should be given to the petitioner. It appears, however, that these efforts bore no fruit and on the 5th of October, 1959 the petitioner was informed that lime stone lease for an area of 4810. 16 acres in Tehsils Chechat and Ramganjmandi had been sanctioned in favour of the respondent No. 3 with effect from 1. 10. 59 and it was only the remaining area of the mines in the Tehsils which could be leased out by auction in which the petitioner was at liberty to participate. It is against this order that the petitioned has moved this Court. The petitioner claims that the order in question passed by the State Government infringes Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called the Rules) which have been framed on the authority of Rule 4 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 of the Central Government. According to the contention of the petitioner, its application was presented on the 27th June, 1959, while the respondent No. 3 presented his application on the 10th of July, 1959 at a much later date; and, therefore, by virtue of Rule 23 the petitioner was entitled to preference and priority in the grant of the mining lease; and the authorities concerned had no justification for granting a lease to the respondent No. 3 in derogation of the right of priority claimed by the petitioner. The contention, in our opinion, can not prevail and is evidently based upon a misconception of the actual facts. It is tr|uc that R. 23 contemplates that preference shall be given to the application received first; unless for any special reason the Government decided to the contrary. In this case, therefore, the first question which arises is whether the petitioner had presented its application on 27th June, 1959 as claimed. Rule 20 requires that every application for grant of mining lease have to be made or shall be made to the Director. Rule 21 says that such an application shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 5/-, which in case the grant is refused, may be refunded subject to any special condition; and under Rule 22, the application for a mining lease has to be in a particular form and should contain the particulars referred to therein. In this case on petitioner's own showing the application was not presented to the Director but the Minister of Industries and Mines, Rajasthan, Jaipur, probably the Chief Minister himself, being incharge of that portfolio. A copy of the application was of course intended to be forwarded to the Director of Mines; but in our opinion, this was not an adequate compliance with the provisions of Rules 20 to 22. There was no fee paid along with the application itself; nor does it appear that the application was in proper form. The Minister of Industries could have easily ignored such an application; but the Minister directed the application to be sent to the Director and we find that the fee itself was paid on the 9th of August, 1959 and not earlier. In the meantime on the 10th of July, 1959 the respondent No. 3 had already filed an application for grant of the lease. It is obvious, therefore that there was no regular petition filed by the petitioner as required by the rules for settlement of the mines in question; nor was the fee paid in due course until after the respondent No. 3 had already filed his application for grant of settlement. There is no question that the application of the respondent No. 3 was not in due and proper form as contemplated by the rules and did not conform to the requirements of Rules 20 to 22. That being so, there appears to be no reason why the petitioner should claim preference to respondent No. 3 in the grant of the mining lease on the authority of Rule 23 of the Rules. If the petitioner claims the benefit of Rule 23, its application should have been in due form and in accordance with the requirements of the various rules to which we have referred; and in the absence of its complying with those requirements, it could not claim any priority as against the respondent No. 3, whose application was in order. Then again, it appears from the facts in this case that the respondent No. 3 was in actual occupation of the mines and had been working the same. He had not delivered possession of the mines to the State of Rajasthan, although the lease had been unilaterally cancelled. On the contrary, it appears that this respondent was insisting upon 1 is rights to exploit the mines in question under the lease granted by the then Ruler of Kotah and had instituted a suit for the purpose. He had also obtained an order for stay of delivery of possession of the mines in question as against the State Government. Later, it appears that after having obtained settlement of the mines, the respondent No. 3 applied for withdrawal of the suit and got the suit dismissed. The Court in passing the order on 17th March, 1960, observed that what the plaintiff had said was correct and probably renewal had been ordered by the Government which in itself showed that the order of the Government terminating the lease was not a proper order and the plaintiff was justified in instituting the suit. On these facts, it can not be argued that the State Government was not justified in granting the lease to the respondent No. 3 even if it can be said to be a renewal of the lease in its favour. For these reasons, we think that it is not a fit case in which we can at all interfere. The application is accordingly rejected with costs Rs. 100/-, which is to be shared equally, by the Government and the respondent No. 3. . ;