- (1.) The petitioner has filed this contempt petition ostensibly on the ground that the order dated 3.8.2012 passed by a learned Single Judge is being flouted by the respondents-contemnors.
(2.) According to the petitioner, by order dated 19.12.1960, a mining lease of lime stone, for an area of 83.46 hectares, situated near Village Pipakheri, Tehsil Ramganjmandi, Kota for a period of five years was sanctioned in his favour under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The said lease deed was executed on 11.03.1961 and was registered on 11.04.1961. Thus, the lease came into effect on 11.4.1961. Periodically, the lease was renewed by the Government. By order dated 31.7.1991, the fifth renewal was made for a period of ten years. Prior to the expiry of the said period, the petitioner had submitted an application for extension of ten years under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 ('the Rules of 1986' in short). Consequently, the lease was extended up to 10.4.2011. Prior to the completion of this period, on 8.4.2010, the petitioner submitted an application for renewal. However, by order dated 297.2011, the application for renewal of the mining lease was rejected by the State Government. On 3.8.2011, the Government took over the mining area. The said area was declared as free for grant of lease on 9.8.2011. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the rejection of his application for renewal of lease, he filed the present writ petition before this Court. On 14.12.2012, this Court passed the order as under:- "Heard. Admit. Fresh notices need not be issued to the respondents being represented by their respective counsel. As regards interim relief, State Government is restrained from allotting further mining lease pursuant to notification dt. 09.08.2011 (Ann.13) till further orders; however, grant of mining lease in favour of respondent-5 pursuant to notification dt. 19.8.2011 (Ann.13) will be subject to final outcome of instant petition."
(3.) During the pendency of the writ petition, a mining lease for an area of 4 hectares out of 83.61 hectares was sanctioned in favour of the respondent No.2, Nandesh (respondent No.5 in the writ petition). Therefore, the petitioner had moved a second stay application before this Court for restraining the respondent No. 2, Nandesh from excavating his mine. However, notwithstanding his protest, by order dated 3.8.2012, this Court had passed the following order:- "After taking note of the submissions made by respective counsel for the parties, this Court considers it appropriate to observe that once grant of mining lease in favour of respondent-5 has been protected by this Court certainly he cannot be restrained from excavation of minerals from the area available under the mining lease, at the same time would like to observe that as regards the auction proceedings which the State Government has initiated regarding mineral available at site during the period when grant of mining lease to the petitioner was determined on 02.08.2011 the sale proceeds after disposal may be intimated to this Court, copy whereof be made available to the petitioner as well and sale proceeds after due auction may be kept in a separate account which may yield interest and same will be considered at the time of final disposal of the writ petition.";