DAVE,c. J - (1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by one Inder Singh.
(2.) IT is common ground between the parties that the Government of Raj. conveyed sanction for grant of a mining lease in favour of the petitioner on 10th January, 1957. The said sanction was in respect of mining operations of saltpetre (potassium nitrate) in Rincholi area. The leave was sanctioned for a period of five years commencing from 23rd February, 1955. IT appears that the petitioner was already put in possession of the mine in anticipation of the sanction and the sanction given on 10th January, 1957 itself mentioned the period of five years to commence from 23rd February, 1955. Thus the period of five years was to expire on 22nd Feb. 1960. The petitioner's contention is that before the expiry of the said period, he presented an application for the renewal of the said lease on 10th November, 1959. He was, however, informed by the Assistant Director, Industries and Commerce, Jodhpur, respondent No. 2, by his letter Ex. 2, that his application for renewal had been refused. He was further directed to stop manufacturing saltpetre and vacate the area within a period of one month from the date of the expiry of the said lease. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that under Rule 40 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, which will hereinafter be referred to as the 'rules', his client had a right of renewal of the lease for another period of five years commencing from 23rd February, 1960, that his legal right was wrongly denied by the non-petitioners, that the proceedings taken by them for auction of the said lease to others were illegal, and therefore, it has been prayed that this Court should issue a writ, direction or order, prohibiting the non-petitioners from taking possession of the mine and stopping the petitioner from manufacturing the saltpetre. In reply, it is stated on behalf of the non-petitioners that after the sanction of the lease in favour of the petitioner, he was repeatedly requested to execute a formal lease deed and since he failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 28-A of the Rules, his lease automatically terminated after the period of six months from the date of the order sanctioning the lease and thus he had no right left to ask for its renewal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that his client never refused to execute the lease, that he had submitted stamp papers of the value of Rs. 18/-in respect of three areas including the disputed one, that the said stamp papers were sent to the Mining Engineer, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jodhpur, that the department was later on transferred to the Director of Industries and Commerce, Jodhpur, and since the said stamp papers could not be traced out, the lease could not be executed. Shri R. A. Gupta appearing for the non-petitioners has stated at the Bar that the petitioner has not produced any receipt regarding the said stamp papers, that the Assistant Director, Industries and Commerce, still tried his best to get them traced and when they were not traceable, the petitioner was informed several times in writing that he should attend the office and execute the lease deed, but he never cared to execute the deed on the requisite stamp papers. He has drawn our attention to Ex. A-2 which is a letter dated 14th September, 1959 from the Director of Industries and Supplies Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur to the Assistant Director, Industries and Commerce, Jodhpur. A perusal of this letter shows that the draft agreement was sent to the Assistant Director in respect of the mining lease for Rincholi area which was leased out to the petitioner and he was requested to see that the agreement was correctly executed on the requisite stamp papers. In pursuance of this letter, the Assistant Director, Industries and Commerce, wrote a letter Ex. A-3 to the petitioner. In this letter, his attention was drawn to the previous correspondence dated 24th July, 1959 and 21st August, 1959 which were in the nature of reminders. It was further stated in the letter that the petitioner was again directed to come to the office for the execution of the agreement within a fortnight failing which the authorities would be moved to cancel the lease. It appears from the perusal of Ex. 6 that the petitioner wrote a letter to the Mining Engineer asking him to send the stamp papers and the standard form of the lease agreement to the Asstt. Director of Industries and Commerce and forward a copy of that letter to the Assistant Director, Industries and Commerce, in reply to his letter dated 24th Oct. , 1959. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that this reply shows that his client was not unwilling to execute the lease. It may be observed that the petitioner was only showing his willingness to execute the lease-deed, but he did not care to attend the office of the Assistant Director, Industries and Commerce, and execute the same. He ought not to have been negligent in attending the office of the Asstt. Director, Industries and Commerce, and executing the lease-deed as required by law. Even if it be assumed that he had at one time supplied the stamp of six rupees to the Mining Engineer in the past, his only contention could be to absolve him from the responsibility of depositing the stamp paper again but there was no justification for not going to the office of the Assistant Director and not executing the lease-deed according to the directions given by him. It may be pointed out that R. 28-A requires that when a mining lease is granted, the formal lease must be executed within six months 6f the order sanctioning the lease and if no such lease is executed within the aforesaid period, the order sanctioning the lease would be deemed to have been revoked. It is clear from the perusal of this Rule that it provides an automatic revocation of the order sanctioning the lease in case it is not executed within the prescribed period. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the petitioner not only failed to execute the lease deed within the prescribed period, but he did not care to execute it even thereafter in spite of repeated requests made to him by the Assistant Director, Industries and Commerce Department. The petitioner having failed to execute a valid [ lease according to law, he could not claim its renewal under R. 40 of the Rules. The petitioner has to thank himself for his carelessness or obstinacy, whatever it may be. There is no force in this writ application and it is hereby dismissed with costs. . ;