- (1.) This batch of writ petitions, as per Schedule 'A', is being disposed of by common order as the controversy involved is common under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 and the present litigation is the fallout of the quashing of the Sand Stone Policy notified by the State Government on 24/4/2007, which Notification came to be quashed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in SBCWP No.6641/2007 (Deepak Khanna & 12 Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) (details in Schedule 'B') decided on 21/5/2009 and which judgment became final as neither of the parties preferred any appeal against the said judgment.
(2.) The facts of the lead case in the present batch is taken from SBCWP No.12284/11 - Ram Prakash Sharma vs. State of Raj. & Ors., who was also petitioner in the earlier batch of writ petitions decided by the coordinate bench of this court on 21/5/2009 at serial no.6 (SBCWP No.6582/2007 Ram Prakash Sharma vs. State & Ors.). Earlier decision of this Court:
(3.) Before coming to the controversy involved in the present case, it is considered opportune to quote the relevant portion from the judgment dated 21/5/2009 of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Deepak Khanna for better understanding of the controversy in the present batch of writ petitions. "By these writ petitions, the validity of notification Annex.3 commonly known as Sandstone Policy dated 24.04.2007 has been challenged by the petitioners. The petitioners in SBCW No.6641/07 applied for grant of mining lease for mineral Masonry Stone and Sandstone near village Rohila Kallan and the petitioners in other writ petitions also applied for mining lease for mineral Masonry Stone and Sandstone in the areas falling within village Bujhawad, Choukha, Gangana and Rohila Kallan, Tehsil and District Jodhpur. During the pendency of the applications filed by the petitioners, the respondent State Govt. issued a notification dated 24.04.2007 (Annex.3) in respect of four villages namely Bujhawad, Choukha, Gangana and Rohila Kallan in exercise of powers under Rule 65-A of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short 'the Rules of 1986' hereinafter) providing a different procedure for allotment of mining lease from the Rules of 1986. At the relevant time of filing applications by the petitioners for grant of mining lease there were number of mining leases already sanctioned and were operating in the area of the villages mentioned herein above. The petitioners have been waiting for allotment of the mining leases as the procedure for grant of mining lease is first-come first-served as provided under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1986 which provides the preferential rights of certain persons precisely providing the preferential right for the applicants whose applications were received on earlier date for grant of mining lease over an applicant whose application was received later. Without affording an opportunity of hearing or giving notice, the respondents rejected the applications filed by the petitioners vide Annex.2 on the ground that by notification dated 24.4.2007 the State Govt. has decided to allot the mining lease for mineral Sandstone in villages Bujhawad, Chokha, Gangana and Rohila Kallan only after delineation. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there being no provision for delineation in respect of the areas for which mining leases are to be granted under the provisions of the Rules of 1986 as also the policy being discriminatory as the mining lease in the State of Rajasthan are granted under the provisions of Rules of 1986 and only for four villages mentioned above, a different policy, without there being any nexus with the object sought to be achieved, vide Notification dated 24.4.2007 has been issued by the State Govt. Hence these writ petitions." The conclusions of the learned Single Judge were as under:- "From the perusal of the Notification dated 24.4.2007 it nowhere states that such a deviation from the normal rules as provided under the Rules of 1986 for grant of mining lease is in the interest of mineral development. The very basis which empowers the State Govt. to deviate from the general procedure for grant of mining lease under Rule 65-A is for leasing out mineral deposit in the interest of mineral development. The applicants who have applied for mining lease having preferential right for grant of such lease as envisaged under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1986, by such policy have been deprived of their preferential right for such grant. The State has failed to show any reason as to why the notification dated 24.4.2007 is only in respect of four villages namely Bujhawad, Choukha, Gangana and Rohila Kallan of Tehsil Jodhpur when as noticed above in Tehsil Jodhpur and the area around, there are number of areas where masonry and Sandstone mining leases have been granted and no such policy has been made applicable to them. Even from the reply filed by the State, the State failed to justify the object sought to be achieved by such policy vide notification dated 24.4.2007. In this view of the matter, in my view, the notification dated 24.4.2007 is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore, it cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, all the writ petitions are allowed. The notification dated 24.4.2007 is hereby quashed. The order rejecting the applications of the petitioners is also quashed and the applications filed by the petitioners are revived. The respondents now shall consider and decide the applications filed by the petitioners for grant of mining lease and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Stay petitions also stand disposed of." Background of present writ petitions:;