VYAS, J. - (1.) IN D.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.4241/2013 and 4242/2013 the petitioners have challenged the amendment introduced by notification dated 03.04.2013 in sub-rule (10) of Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 in so far as it rejects all pending applications up to 27.01.2011 in respect of which sanctions have been issued but agreement could not be executed with the prayer to quash order/letter dated 10.04.2013 issued by the Director, Mines, Udaipur and to consider the pending applications of the petitioners as per notification dated 03.04.2013. In all other writ petitions almost same prayer has been made by the petitioners.
(2.) IN D.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.3950 and 3951 of 2013, in addition to the prayer for quashing of notification dated 03.04.2013 whereby sub-rule (10) of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1986 the petitioners are challenging Rule 7(3) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession (Third Amendment) Rules, 2013 and that the respondents may be directed to execute the lease- deed of mines in favour of the petitioners. For the sake of convenience we are taking the facts narrated in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4241/2013 into consideration to decide the controversy in question. The petitioner No.1 is an association of persons/firms dealing with the business of excavation of mineral masonry stone/sand stone and petitioners No.2 to 25 are members of the federation.
(3.) THE petitioners are ventilating their grievance against the action of the State Government in not giving effect to the judgment dated 21.05.2009 rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6641/2007 and 12 other writ petitions decided on 21.05.2009. According to the petitioners, the grant of mining lease for mineral masonary stone the provisions contained in the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (referred to hereinafter as "the Act of 1957") and the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (referred to hereinafter as "the Rules of 1986") are applicable.;