K. S. SIDHU, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, Bhanwar Singh, obtained a mining lease for extracting sand-stone from the Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan for a period of five years from January 6, 1974, to January 5, 1979. On June 12, 1978 he made an application for the renewal of the lease. THE Assistant Mining Engineer wrote a letter, dated, August 1, 1978, to the petitioner requiring him to submit a "no dues certificate ' and a statement regarding future plans of the petitioner for the development of the area. THE petitioner sent a reply that it was for the Assistant Mining Engineer himself to issue the 'no dues certificate' and that since he had already paid all the dues, he may issue the requisite certificate. He sent a statement about what he had done and proposed to do for the development of the mining area. On his failure to obtain the renewal from the Assistant Mining Engineer, the petitioner approached the Superintending Mining Engineer pleading that under rule 17 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 (the Rules, for short) he was entitled to a renewal of the lease for a period of 10 years. It appears that even the Superintending Mining Engineer was also not persuaded to grant the renewal as prayed. Rules lay down (See rules 8 (2) and 17 (3) that if the application for grant of renewal is not disposed of within the period of original lease, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended for a period of six months or till the date of the communication of the refusal to the lessee whichever is earlier. Since there was no communication of refusal in this case, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended for a period of six months only, i. e. from January 6, 1979 to July 5, 1979.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the "deemed refusal", the petitioner made an application under rule 64 of the Rules for revision and for a direction to the subordinate authorities to grant the renewal for a period of 10 years. The petitioner avers that the revision was set down for hearing on March 12, 1980, but he could not enter appearance that day, and that he has since learnt that the same was dismissed. Inspite of the "deemed refusal" and dismissal of his revision petition against the said refusal the petitioner has been and is still continuing the mining operations in the area. He filed the present writ petition on August 4, 1980, and obtained an order directing the parties to maintain the status quo. Dr. M. M. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed for admission of this writ petition on two grounds : (i) that rule 17 (3) which provides for "deemed refusal" is arbitrary and ultra vires. (ii) the petitioner is entitled as a matter of right, under law to a renewal of the mining lease for a period of ten years. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record, I am of opinion that there is no merit in any of the two contentions raised by Dr. Tewari and that therefore this writ petition should be dismissed at this stage itself. To take up ground (ii) first, the petitioner's learned counsel referred in this connection to rules 16 and 17 (1) and argued that since under rule 16 the period for which a lease will be granted "shall be 10 years unless the applicant himself desires for a shorter period", the renewal too has to be granted for a similar period of 10 years. Counsel referred in this connection to rule 17 which, emitting the portions which are not relevant here, may be read as under : (1) Upon an application being made in this behalf and where such application is found complete in all respect, the Government shall renew the mining lease for a period equivalent to the period of the original lease; Provided that the State Government while granting the renewal of the mining lease may in its discretion reduce the area of the lease so that the area sanctioned shall in no case exceed 15 Sq. Kilometers. (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the instrument of the mining lease, if the application for the grant of renewal has not been disposed of before the expiry of the lease period, the lease shall be deemed as extended for a period of six months or till the date of communication of refusal to the lease whichever is earlier on the condition that the dead-rent for the extended period shall be as per the existing rate at the time of the expiry of the lease. Now, reading the above provisions of rule 17 and giving full meaning to each of them, I am unable to accept the contention that the State Government is under a statutory obligation and that it has no option in the matter except to grant the renewal of the lease in favour of the petitioner for a period of 10 years. Of course it is equally clear that if the State Government decides to grant the renewal it has to be for a period of 10 years, but if the State Government decides to refuse the renewal and there-fore does not dispose of the application for renewal before the expiry of the period of the lease, as in the instant case, there is no question of renewal beyond the period of six months from the date of the expiry of the original terms of the lease, as provided in the Rules. The proviso to sub-rule (1) and sub r (3) reproduced above clearly bring out the intention of the legislature to the effect that the State Government is under no mandatory duty to grant the renewal of a mining lease. The proviso to rule 1 enables the State Government to reduce the area of the lease. This means that the renewal, if granted may not be the same thing as the original lease. Sub rule (3) of rule 17 which deals with the consequences of non-disposal of the application for renewal, within the period of the original lease lay down that the lease shall be deemed to have been extended for period of six months or till the date of communication of refusal to the lease whichever is earlier. If the proviso left any doubt as to the power of the State Government to refuse to grant renewal, sub rule (3) removes the same inasmuch as it speaks of such refusal and its communication to the lessee and provides that in any case the original lease cannot last beyond a period of six months from the date of expiry of its original term. Rule 8 (2) also mentions about refusal to grant renewal in the same terms as rule 17 (3 ). There is therefore no doubt that the State Government possesses the power to refuse renewal of a mining lease to a lessee. Dr. Tewari, cited State of Rajasthan vs. Harishanker, (1) in support of his argument that a statutory obligation is cast on the State Government to grant renewal of a lease to a lessee and that too for a period of 10 years. I have carefully studied this ruling and find it has no application to the facts of this case. It will be seen that one of the points for decision before their Lordships was whether rule 30 of the rules, applicable in that case, gave discretion to the State Government to extend the period of the lease for any period less than 5 years. The rule requiring interpretation in the cited case reads as under : "period of lease.- A mining lease may be granted for a period of 5 years unless the applicant himself desires a shorter period : Provided that the period may be extended by the Government for another period not exceeding 5 years with option to the lessee for renewal for another equivalent period, in case the lessee guarantees investment in machinery, equipments and the like at least to the tune of 20 times the value of annual dead rent within 3 years from the grant of such extension. The value of machinery, equipment and the like shall be determined by the Government. Where the lease is so renewed, the dead rent and the surface rent shall be fixed by the Government within the limits given in the Second Schedule to these rules, and shall in no case exceed twice the original dead rent and surface rent, respectively, and the royalty shall be charged at the rates in force at the time of renewal. " The above rule was constituted by this court to mean that it did not give discretion to the State Government to fix the term of a lease for a period shorter than 5 years and that such period must perforce be 5 years, and that for renewal also, it is incumbent on the Government to extend the period for not less than 5 years. The Supreme Court affirmed the view and held; "the first extension has to be fore five years. Government has no option in that regard as well". Obviously, this ruling cannot be legitimately pressed into service in support of the argument that there is no option to the Government, but to grant the renewal. The ratio of the cited decision has to be discovered from the precise point for determination in that case As already stated, the point for determi-tion was whether the extension granted could be for a period shorter than 5 years. Their Lordships decided in the negative. It is not permissible to extend this ratio and say that their Lordships also decided that if a mining lease is granted once, it must be renewed after the expiry of its initial term. The petitioner's learned counsel read a few words from paragraph 21 of the reported judgment and argued that those words indicate that it is incumbent on the Government to grant renewal. The relevant passage relied upon by the counsel reads : "the word 'say' in the proviso in regard to the extension of the period by Government should also be construed as 'shall' so as to make it incumbent on Govt to extend the period of the lease if the lessee desires extension. " These words have however to be read in the context of the discussion relating to the point in issue before their Lordships. The issue was whether the Government had discretion to grant extension for a period shorter than 5 years. The issue arising in the instant case is whether the Government has an option to grant renewal. The two issues are entirely different. The ratio of the cited case cannot, therefore, apply for the decision of the issue arising in this case.
(3.) MOREVER, it bears repetition that the language of rule 17 (3) of the Rules is entirely different from the language of the rule which was being considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Rule 17 (3) clearly provides for refusal to grant renewal. It cannot be set at naught on the basis of a ruling dealing with a rule cauched in an entirely different language. In view of the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the Rule do not cast any mandatory duty on the Government to grant renewal of a mining lease to the lessee. I may again add the caveat that if the Government decides to grant the renewal, such renewal has to be for a period of not less than ten years unless the lessee himself desires to obtain it for a shorter period. Turning now to ground (1) of Dr. Tewari's argument, I do not see any arbitrariness about rule 17 (3 ). The rule concerns a contract of lease between the parties. It provides that if the application for renewal of the original lease js not disposed of within the terms of the original lease the lease shall be deemed extended, but only for a period of six months and not beyond. There is nothing arbitrary about such extension from period of six months. It is always open to the lessee not to avail of such extension and walk out after the expiry of the original term. Hence this ground also fails. ;