- (1.) By an order dated 11.12.1985 a mining lease for excavating minor mineral lime stone was sanctioned in favour of the respondent petitioner as per provisions of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1986'). The lease at the first instance was for a period of ten years and was further extended for ten years w.e.f. 1.4.1986. The term of lease came to be expired on 31.3.1996 and on 3.4.2006 possession of the leased area was taken over by the Department of Mining as no application was preferred for further extension of lease term. On 10.8.2006 the respondent petitioner submitted an application for extension of lease term but that came to be rejected vide order dated 26.9.2006 passed by Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur. The Additional Director while rejecting the application stated that after expiry of the lease term on 31.3.2006 possession of the area was taken on 3.4.2006 and the lessee did not submit any application for renewal within the period prescribed under the Rules of 1986.
(2.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.9.2006 the respondent petitioner preferred a revision petition before the State Government but that too came to be rejected vide order dated 24.4.2007. The revisional authority noticed that the application for renewal of the mining lease was submitted on 10.8.2006 i.e. after a lapse of about one year and four months from the date on which application for renewal should have been moved. The revisional authority also not find any sufficient reason to condone a huge delay in submitting renewal application.
(3.) To challenge the order passed by the revisional authority and the order passed by the Additional Director (Mines) dated 26.9.2006 the respondent petitioner approached this Court by way of filing a petition for writ that came to be accepted by judgment dated 4.2.2013. Learned Single Bench while accepting the petition for writ observed and held as under:-- "14. The period of one year prescribed for applying for renewal in Rule 8(2) does not prescribe for any automatic cancellation of mining lease after expiry of lease period which is 31.3.2006 in the present case. On the other hand, the renewal applications are supposed to be dealt with in terms of Rule 17 quoted above. Deemed renewal upto the date when the authority concerned passes orders on renewal application, if they are filed in time and thereafter upon payment of penalty under Section 17(2) is envisaged in the Rules. Sub Rule (5) of Rule 17 also provides that the competent authority may while granting the renewal of mining lease may even impose the conditions after obtaining prior approval of the Government by a general or specific order. Thus, the mining lease granted for a period of 10 to 20 years is not expected to be brought to a sudden end in the hands of lessee, but a prior and due procedure has been prescribed in the Rules for dealing with such renewal applications. The lessee in the past period of subsisting lease might have made investment in the leased area to develop the same, the full benefit of which was to accrue to him in the subsequent period for which renewal of lease is sought. 15. In the present case however, this Court finds that the renewal application with delay of 4 months has been rejected without assigning any proper and cogent reasons by the authorities below. Unfortunately by these kind of cryptic and laconic orders, the litigation has been stretched for last six years, but mining area itself has remained undeveloped and idle. Neither any development work could be undertaken by the petitioner nor the Department took any action to allot the lease to any other party causing loss of valuable national resources. In the opinion of this Court, it is high time when the quasi judicial authorities passing these kinds of orders are put to terms and are fixed with the personal responsibility, if they chose to ignore the relevant statutes or exercise their quasi-judicial discretion in a cryptic and arbitrary manner. This case is glaring example of same. Therefore, this Court is inclined to impose costs of Rs. 5,000/- on each of the authorities who passed the two impugned orders in question viz. Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur (Mr. P. Gehlot, name is not clear in the impugned order and Mr. Niranjan Prasad Sharma, Dy. Secretary (Mines), Jaipur. They shall pay the costs of Rs. 5,000/- each in State Treasury within a period of one month from the receipt of this order. The proof of such deposit by them be filed before this Court in the present case. 16. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The Order Annex. 2 dtd. 26.9.2006 and order dtd. 24.4.2006 (Annex. 4) are quashed and the respondent - Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur is directed to pass afresh appropriate orders in accordance with law after the petitioner deposits the amount of penalty for delay of 4 months and 10 days in filing the renewal application which he should deposit within two weeks from today and the Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur shall pass fresh orders within a period of two months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to all the concerned parties forthwith.";