MADAN, J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions since relate to one and selfsame mining lease dispute as to the revision of dead rent and having been filed by petitioner M/s. Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. have been jointly heard at the request of both the parties and are therefore disposed of by this common order.
(2.) SHORN in details relevant facts necessary for disposal of these petitions are epitomised thus. Admittedly the petitioner Company was granted mining lease for lime stone (building stone) for ten years w. e. f. 1. 10. 59 in respect of an area of 4810. 16 acres in Ramganj Mandi on annual dead rent of Rs. 2 lacs. Even first renewal was undisputably granted on double the annual dead rent at Rs. 4 lacs and further followed by second renewal for 10 years from 1. 10. 79 as to area of 14. 146 sq. km. vide Annexure 1 but at the annual dead rent being computed as per 2nd schedule of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1977 (for brevity 1977 Rules) which was fixed at Rs. 14,70,480/- subject to revision under Rule 18 (3) of the 1977 Rules after 5 years. A dispute arose when revision of annual dead rent was made by fixing it at Rs. 34,08,710/- on 3. 7. 86 making it effective from 1. 10. 84. Meanwhile the 1977 Rules were repealed by promulgating Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short, 1986 Rules ). The dead rent of Rs. 14,70,480/- was revised to Rs. 34,08,710/- against which an appeal was preferred before the mines Director who by his order dated 30. 8. 86 remanded the matter with direction for denovo assessment of annual dead rent as per formula laid down under Rule 18 (3) of Rules, 1986 by rectifying calculation mistake if any under Rule 47. Consequent upon remain the dead rent was revised to Rs. 24,90,339/- p. a. w. e. f. 1. 10. 84 but the State government in exercise of its power under Rule 47 of the 1986 Rules again revised dead rent to Rs. 34,10,081/- by its order dated 6. 4. 88 which was challenged by the petitioner in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1545/88 wherein this Court by its order dated 27. 4. 1989 quashed State Government's order dated 6. 4. 1988 but directed to redetermine annual dead rent as per settled formula. Meanwhile third renewal became due so the petitioner admittedly applied for third renewal which was granted by the State Govt. on 15. 9. 89 (Ann. 2) to reduced area of 9. 991 sq. km. Thus upto third renewal effective from 1. 10. 89, the mining leased area was admittedly 14. 146 sq. kms. and annual dead rent upon third renewal was revised at Rs. 72,46,472/-, to which the petitioner protested by its representation dt. 20. 9. 89 (Ann. 3) followed by reminder dt. 30. 9. 89 (Ann. 4) to the respondents. But having received no response, hence the petitioner preferred writ petition No. 5134/89 seeking direction to the respondents inter-alia:- (1) to determine annual dead rent of renewed mining lease of 9. 991 sq. kms. as per rule 18 (3) of the Rules, 1986 and (2) to revise dead rent (a) treating existing dead rent at Rs. 24,90,339 and further (b) reducing existing dead rent in proportion to the area reduced i. e. from 14. 146 to 9. 991 sq. km. In second writ petition No. 4096/99, the petitioner sought relief for (1) quashing & setting aside order dated 15. 3. 99 of the Central Government (Ann. 8) so also that of the State Government dated 16. 12. 92 (Ann. 7) and (2) directing respondents to redetermine the dead rent on the basis of Rule 18 (3) of the 1986 Rules. This second petition though relates to the revision of dead rent of the period (1984-89 but it pertains to final orders upon adjudication of the revision in question by the State and Central Governments on the appeals of the petitioner. Relying upon rule 18 (3) of 1986 Rules, Shri Bafna learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the dead rent of the period w. e. f. 1. 10. 84 to 30. 9. 89 (for brevity impugned revision) was revised to Rs. 34,08,710/- as per formula under 1977 Rules whereas it since having been computed on 3. 7. 86 (i. e. after repeal of old 1977 Rules and promulgation of new 1986 Rules) ought not to have been done under 1977 Rules but under 1986 Rules, Shri Bafna added that as was urged in petitioner's representation, the impugned revision of dead rent should have been at Rs. 24,43,409/- under Rule 18 (3) of 1986 Rules inasmuch as once its appeal against wrong calculation was disposed of by the Mines Director on 30. 8. 86 (Ann. 2) directing the AEN (Mines) to revise the dead rent as per Rule 18 (3) of 1986 Rules, therefore, as per this order (Ann. 2) which attained its finality because of having filed no appeal, Rule 18 (3) of 1986 Rules is applicable and not the 1977 Rules. In my considered view, merely because the Additional Director (Mines) in his order dated 30. 8. 86 (Ann. 2) directed to revise dead rent under Rule 18 (3) of 1986 Rules, it cannot be said that 1986 Rules are applicable for the impugned revision period, as even if upon careful perusal of this order dated 30. 8. 86 (Ann. 2) it is crystal clear that such a direction was given by the Addl. Director while dismissing the petitioner's appeal itself, holding it as not maintainable under Rule 43, and in fact only liberty was given to rectify calculation mistake in exercise of State Govt. 's power under Rule 47, while upholding impugned revision of dead rent at Rs. 34,08,7109/- against which appeal before the Mines Director was dismissed under order dt. 30. 8. 86 (Ann. 2 ). Be that as it may, pursuant to liberty by order dt. 30. 8. 86 (Ann. 2), AEN (Mines) redetermined dead rent revising at Rs. 24,90,339/- by order dt. 4. 3. 87 (Ann. 3) which was recalculated at Rs. 34,10,081/- by the State Govt. in exercise of its power under Rule 47 by order dt. 6. 4. 88 (Ann. 5) in supersession of redetermination done by the AEN. However, recalculation order of the State dt. 6. 4. 88 (Ann. 5) was set aside by this Court under order dt. 27. 4. 89 in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1545/88 as under:- " Consequently we hereby allow this writ petition, set aside Annexure 8 dated 6. 6. 88 and the demand notice, and send the case back to the State Government with a direction to hear the parties and then redetermine the dead rent possible. The petitioner shall be free to raise all the objections. All the objections will be raised by the petitioner within two weeks to the State Government. The State Government is directed to decide the matter as soon as possible but in no case later than 3 months. We direct the parties to be present before the competent authority of the State Government on 22. 5. 89. "
(3.) THUS, the matter was remanded back to the State Govt. to firstly hear the parties and then redetermine the dead rent. The petitioner was given liberty to raise all objections. The petitioner submitted objections pursuant to order dt. 27. 4. 89 of this Court on 11. 5. 89 but again, the State Govt. by its order dt. 16. 1. 91 redetermined the impugned dead rent at Rs. 24,10,081/- against which further writ petition No. 940/91 was preferred whereby on 20. 11. 91 the matter was remanded back to the State to afford personal hearing to the petitioner before recalculating the dead rent. Again, reiterating that this Court had directed to recalculate the impugned dead rent as per 1986 Rules, Shri Bafna vociferously argued that the State Govt. in its order dt. 16. 12. 92 (Ann. 7) ignored this significant aspect rather committed an error apparent on the face of its record while redetermining the impugned dead rent at Rs. 34,10,081/- as per 1977 Rules and this resulted in preferring revision petition under Sec. 30 of the Mines & Mineral (Regulation & Development) Act, 1967 which too was dismissed by the General Govt. under its order dt. 15. 3. 99 (Ann. 8), against which second petition No. 4096/99 is pending consideration herein. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and given earnest consideration to their rival contention in consonance with relevant provisions of both the 1977 & 1986 Rules besides other material on record, I find that an ardent efforts were were made to complex the issue, itself, reiterating the selfsame controversy raised since 1986 despite the petitioners have undergone ordeal of litigations by playing several legal gimmicks and innings, whereas a very short controversy at issue is as to whether the 1977 or 1986 Rules are applicable for the revision of dead rent for the period from 1. 10. 1984 to 30. 9. 1989 if it were computed on 3. 7. 86? ;