- (1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the communication dated 22nd August, 2008 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Mining Department to the Director, Directorate of Mines & Geology, Udaipur, recommending that the petitioner's renewal application in respect of quarry licence for marble over Quarry/Plot No. 196/3 Gunawati Range Area, Makrana, be cancelled and area be declared to be vacant.
(2.) MR. A.K. Sharma Senior Counsel with MR. Rahul Kamwar apperaing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was granted a quarry licence on 27th May, 1987 for mineral marble for a period from 27-05-1987 to 31-12-1987. Thereafter, on 29th December, 1987, prior to the expiry of the quarry licence, the petitioner moved an application for renewal thereof for the period from 01-01-1988 to 31-12-1988. It is submitted that however, the said application for renewal was rejected on 18th March, 1988 for purported non-compliance of then extant rule 27(4) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred in short 'the Rules of 1986') at the time of the grant of the licence rendering the very grant illegal. Counsel submits that aggrieved of the order dated 18th March, 1988, an appeal was filed, without avail. A further revision petition to the State Government was also dismissed. Counsel submits that aggrieved of the dismissal of the renewal application by the State authorities, a revision petition was filed before the Central Government under extant Section 30 of the MM (R&D) Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred in short 'the Act of 1957'). The said revision petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 21st November, 1990, wherein it was directed that the orders of rejection of renewal application filed by the petitioner were to be set aside and the matter remanded to the State Government for disposal on merits in accordance with law. It was also directed that meanwhile no other application be considered for grant of mining lease over the areas involved in the revision petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the remand order dated 21st November, 1990, the revision petition of the petitioner before the State Government, which consequently stood reviewed was not addressed for a period of about 18 years yet without addressing the said revision petition in a manner compliant with the principles of natural justice, an order was instead passed on the administrative side by the Deputy Secretary (Mines) conveying to the Director, Directorate of Mines and Geology, Udaipur that the renewal application for the quarry licence for marble over Quarry/Plot No. 196/3 in Makrana filed by the petitioner should stand dismissed and steps be taken for declaration of vacancy in the area with reference to Section 27(c) of the Act of 1957 and rule 59 of the Rules of 1986. Mr. Zakir Hussain counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that indeed the directions of Central Revising Authority under Section 30 of the Rules of 1986 under its order dated 21st November, 1990 have remained un-complied with. He fairly concedes that consequently the impugned communication dated 22nd August, 1988 made without hearing the petitioner, albeit administrative in nature would deserve to be overlooked. It is submitted that the pending revision petition filed by the petitioner now revived following the remand by the Central revising authority under its order 21st November, 1990 would now be addressed in accordance with its merits at an early date. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. A perusal of the order dated 21st November, 1990 passed by the Central Government indicates that the order of the State Government in the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been set aside and the matter remanded. The remand of the matter quite obviously entailed re-consideration thereof on merits. A perusal of the impugned order dated 22nd August, 2008 indicates that even while it appears that the aforesaid order has been passed with reference to the order dated 21st November, 1990 passed by the Central Government in the exercise of its revisional powers but there is no indication of the petitioner being heard or the matter being addressed on merits as was directed. Consequently, I would set aside the communication dated 22nd August, 2008 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Mining Department to the Director, Directorate of Mines and Geology, Udaipur. I would further direct the Deputy Secretary (Mines) as the revising authority under the Rules of 1986 to address the case of the petitioner on merits against the rejection of his renewal application in respect of quarry licence for marble over Quarry/Plot No. 196/3 after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. The decision on the petitioner's application for renewal be taken within a period of six weeks from the presentation of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.;