- (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 07.09.1999 passed by the State Government, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner under Rule 47 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short 'the Rules of 1986' hereinafter) has been dismissed. The aforesaid revision petition was preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by respondent No.3 - the Assistant Mining Engineer, Sojat City, whereby it had revised the dead rent from Rs.6500/ - to Rs.41,117/ - per annum for a mining lease allotted in the name of father of the petitioner.
(2.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has contended that the Mining Engineer illegally revised the dead rent with retrospective effect, whereas as per the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Amarjeet Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in RLR 1990(2) 457, the respondent -mining department cannot charge revised dead rent from retrospective date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the similar ground and has argued that in view of the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Amarjeet Singh vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (supra), the action of the respondents in charging the dead rent from the retrospective date is illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) IN para 5 of reply to the writ petition, the respondents have averred as under: "(5).............The whole case of the petitioner is based on Amarjeet Singh's case decided by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court. It is true that in that case it was held that the revision of deadrent cannot be made retrospectively but it is most humbly and respectfully submitted that the said case is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The second proviso appended to sub -rule 3 of rule 18 of the Rules of 1986 came to be amended twice. The earlier formula for revision of dead -rent after expiry of 5 years from the date of initial grant or renewal of mining lease was substituted vide order dated 12.8.94 whereas the second proviso was also substituted by inserting a new proviso vide order dated 29.8.96. Under the old second proviso the revision of deadrent was to be made by issuing appropriate order in this regard after expiry of a period of 5 years whereas after substitution of the new proviso vide order dated 29.08.96 the revision is automatic in accordance with the new formula inserted vide order dated 12.8.94. Meaning thereby, the law laiddown by their Lordships in thesaid judgment, namely, Amarjeet Singh's case is neither applicable nor helpful to the petitioner because in that case it was laid down that the revision of dead -rent cannot be made retrospectively. So far as the facts and circumstances of the present case are concerned, it is most humbly and respectfully submitted that after substitution of the new proviso vide order dated 29.8.96, the revision of dead -rent is automatic. The second proviso provides, 'that the rate of annual dead -rent shall stand revised after expiry of 5 years from the date of initial grant or renewal of mining lease in accordance with the following formula : - Revised dead -rent = Existing dead -rent + 40% of existing dead -rent. The second proviso is also retrospective and, therefore, in the present case too, the revision of dead -rent stood revised in accordance with the new formula. Form this point of view, this writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed." ;