- (1.) BY filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought following relief/s: "It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that (i) this writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order daed 29.08.2012 (Annex.5) passed by the Assistant Mining Engineer, Jalore may kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii)by an appropriate order or direction the respondents may be directed to consider the application for renewal of lease and pas order afresh by granting renewal in favour of petitioner. (iii)If during the pendency of the writ petition, any order pre- judicial to the interest of the petitioner is passed by the respondents, then the same may also be quashed and set aside. (iv)Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted in favour of appellant."
(2.) MR . R.K. Soni, learned standing counsel for Mining Department is present in Court, is directed to accept notice on behalf of respondents. Copy of writ petition may be supplied to him during the course of day. The only grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the respondent- Assistant Mining Engineer, Jalore has not assigned any cogent reason for not granting renewal of the Mining Lease No.10/91 for mineral Granite near Village Devda, Tehsil & District Jalore dated 10.04.1992, which initially was given to the petitioner for ten years w.e.f. 10.04.1992 merely because there was a delay of two months in applying for such renewal; and which mine the petitioner had developed for last 20 years. The renewal application dated 22.06.2012 has been rejected by the letter dated 29.08.2012 passed by learned Assistant Mining Engineer, Jalore.
(3.) A perusal of impugned communication dated 29.08.2012 (Annex.5) shows that the said communication does not contain any reasons. The petitioner had relied in his representation (Annex.4) upon a judgment of a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Karim Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2006 WLC (Raj.) UC 277, a copy of said judgment has also been placed on record as Annex.4 to the writ petition. It was expected of the said authority to have passed a speaking order if he had adequate and proper reason to take a different view in the matter.;