- (1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks an appropriate writ, order or direction for (i) quashing the orders of the State Government dated 17-11-1971, 7-9-1973 and 12-11-1973, (ii) an appropriate writ or order or direction restraining the respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4 from giving effect to the above mentioned orders and further to prohibit ihe respondent No. 2 from executing the lease-deed, (iii) an appropriate writ, order or direction to the State Government to consider the application of the petitioner dated 24-3-1972 for grant of the mining lease, and (iv) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the facts and circumstances of the case warrant.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition briefly stated are as follows :-- An area of ten square miles in village Mandla in Tahsil Sojat which is substantially covered by the impugned order sanctioning lease was previously held by Messrs. Keshav Singh and Shivji-singh on annual dead-rent of Rs. 1,00,000. That lease w,as to continue upto 30th of March, 1970. Messrs. Keshavsingh and Shivjisingh surrendered the lease in the middle of 1968. This surrender of lease was accepted by the State Government with effect from 1-6-1968. The State Government then took steps for regrant of the area surrendered by Messrs. Keshav-singh and Shivjisingh and consequently declared the area free for regrant by its notification dated 5-9-1968 as required under Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, hereinafter called the 'rules'. No application seems to have been received in response to the said notice dated 8-6-1969 for about 6 months. It was, therefore, thought desirable that the lease for the area should be put to open auction. Accordingly another notification was issued in February 1969 and the area was put to auction on 24/25th of March, 1969, but no bid was received. The matter appears to have been again considered by the Government which again came with an another notification declaring again the area free tor grant of mining lease and invited applications for grant of lease for the area declared free for regrant. The facts relating to the notification do not find place in the writ petition but find place in the Government's reply which fact has not been disputed by the petitioner before me. On 14-1-1970, respondent No. 2 moved an application for grant of lease for the area of ten square miles which substantially covered the area declared free for regrant with some minor changes as will appear from the site plan enclosed with the application. In the application dated 14-11970 there were some typographical mistakes and, therefore, the respondent No. 2 rectified the typographical mistakes by submitting an application on 14-11-1970. The Mining Engineer and the Director of Mines and Geology made recommendation on the respondent No. 2's application for grant of lease to the respondent No. 2 at an annual dead-rent of Rs. 84,000, but the Government accepted the recommendation regarding grant of lease but fixed the annual dead-rent at one lac rupees. The order granting lease dated 17-11-1971 in favour of the respondent No. 2 was conveyed by the Mining Engineer on 12-1-1972 wherein the respondent No. 2 was directed to execute formal lease within one month from the date of the receipt of the order and further asked him to submit the stamp papers for execution of the lease-deed along with the security amount and the first instalment of dead-rent. It appears that the amount of dead-rent of Rupees 1,00,000 per annum was not acceptable to the respondent No. 2 who made representation for reduction of dead-rent to Rs. 84,000 on 151-1972. The respondent No. 2 further on 16-1-1972 made representation for extension of time until his representation for reduction of dead-rent was finally decided. On 22-8-1972, the Government tunred down the request of respondent No. 2 for reduction of the dead-rent but allowed one month's time to the respondent No. 2 for execution of the formal lease-deed. It will thus appear that the respondent under the order D/- 22-8-1972 could execute the lease upto 21st of September. 1972. It is noteworthy to mention here that in the meantime the petitioner had made an application on 24th of March. 1972 for the grant of lease for ten square miles the very area for which the respondent No. 2 had originally moved an application on 14-1-1972. The respondent No. 2 does not appear to have been satisfied by the Government's stand in persisting in the demand of Rs. 1,00,000 as dead-rent. The respondent No. 2, therefore, made further representation on 8-0-1972 for reconsidering his demand for reduction of the rent. A further application was moved on 11-9-1972 by the respondent No. 2 to the Mining Engineer praying to keep the action in the matter of execution of the lease pending till his representation was finally decided by the Government. The Secretary to the Government by his letter dated 26-10-1972 again turned down the request for reduction of the dead-rent, but further directed the respondent No. 2 to execute the lease within one month from the date of the receipt of that letter. The respondent No. 2 persisted to be aggrieved by the rate of annual dead-rent of Rs. 1,00,000 and so made another representation to the Mining Engineer on 10-11-1972, This representation was disposed of on 13/14th of December, 1972, whereby the prayer for reconsideration of the revision of the dead-rent was turned down but again the respondent No. 2 was granted one month's time for execution of the lease. On 13-1-1973 the respondent made the Last representation for reconsideration of his prayer for. reduction of the dead-rent and for extension of the time for execution of the lease-deed. To complete the facts it may be appropriate to mention that in the mean time the respondent No. 2 had sent Rs. 125 along with his letter dated 18-11-1972 demanded as demarcation fees and had remitted Rs. 25,000 along with his letter dated 20th November, 1972 under protest as first quarter's instalment. It may also be mentioned here that before the order sanctioning the grant of lease in favour of respondent No. 2 was made the respondent No. 2 had sent revised plans along with his letter dated 23-4-1971 to be considered at the time of grant, A controversy was raised in regard to the fact of submission of the revised plan on behalf of the respondent No. 2 on the ground that the revised plans were submitted along with the application dated 26-11-1972 and not with the application dated 23-4-71 which at one stage was alleged by the petitioner to be a smuggled one. In the mean time the Government had called for the report from the Mining Engineer as to whether the lease had been executed by the respondent No. 2. The Mining Engineer by his letter dated 1-11-1972 wrote to the Director Mines and Geology that the party had not yet executed the lease and further informed that the petitioner had applied for the grant of the lease on 24th of March, 1972 and the same was pending and that if the respondent No. 2's lease is revoked by the Government the petitioner's application for grant of lease may be considered. It is also worthwhile to mention here that the Government had called for the report of the Mining Engineer by its D O No, F. 4 (1)/142/i and D/b/64 dated 2-121972 in reply to which the Mining Engineer had in his letter dated 12-1-1973 given the previous history of the area in question pointing out that the area had been vastly exploited and in that view of the matter he had recommended for the fixation of dead-rent to Rs. 34,000. Thereafter on 7-9-1973 the State Government accepted the representation of the respondent No. 2 and by its order dated 7-9-1973 reduced the amount of dead-rent from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 84,000 per annum. After the receipt of the order dated 7-9-1973 the Mining Engineer sought instructions as to whether the lease should be got executed as per the revised plan or as per the plans attached with the original application. The Government by its letter dated 12-11-1973 conveyed its approval for the execution of the lease by the respondent No. 2 as per the revised plan. The case of the petitioner as set up in the writ petition is that the respondent No. 2's lease stood automatically revoked as he failed to execute the lease within one month from the order sanctioning the grant of lease and that the Government has exceeded its jurisdiction in granting extension to the respondent No. 2 who had failed to fulfil the precondition of satisfying the Government that he was not responsible for the delay in the execution of the lease. The further case of the petitioner is that his application dated 24-3-1972 was already pending, and as the respondent No. 2 had submitted the revised plan along with his application dated 26-11-1972 i. e. after his application was filed and therefore, his application was a fresh application. If the respondent No. 2's application in the context of the revised plans is taken to be a fresh application, then only the petitioner's application remained in the field and should have received priority in the matter of grant of lease but the Government failed to exercise jurisdiction which was vested in it in not giving priority to the petitioner's application and, therefore, the impugned orders are void. It is also the case of the petitioner that looking to the Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, hereinafter called the Rules, the Government was not competent to invoke the proviso to Rule 18 of the Rules in favour of the petitioner and thus to grant the lease as per the revised plans.
(3.) THE respondents resisted the petition inter alia on various grounds, the principal grounds being that the petitioner could not acquire any legal enforceable right by moving application on 24-3-1972; that there was an alternative remedy of revision wider Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. hereinafter called the Act and that the Government had power to extend time for the execution of lease under the proviso to Rule 18 in the facts and circumstances of the case; that the revised plans were submitted on 23-4-1971 and not on 26-11-1972 as wrongly alleged by the petitioner and therefore the petitioner's application dated 24-3-1972 was of no avail more particularly when that application was defective being not accompanied by the requisite plans and that the Government had power under Rule 59 of the State Rules to relax any of the provisions of the Rules in the interest of development of minerals or better working of the mines and it was within its competence to allow the respondent No. 2 to execute the lease after the prescribed time and its action was not open to judicial review.;