PALLI, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was sanctioned a mining lease vide order dated 27. 8. 1982 (Annex. l) and Rs. 25,000/- was fixed as annual dead rent and the communication in this respect is Annex. 2 dated 27. 9. 82. THEreafter the area was demarcated and a lease agreement was executed on 4. 10. 1982 between the parties i. e. the petitioner and the State Government. This deed is Annex. 3. Thus, a concluded contract of lease came into existence on 4. 10. 1982. It was formally registered on 9. 11. 1982.
(2.) THE rates of dead rent were revised in respect of certain minerals on 1. 9. 1982 and the rate of Rs. 5/- per 10 square meters for mineral used for lime burning was prescribed. This order Annex. 4 is under challenge. THE cut off date by virtue of this order is 1. 9. 1982 and the petitioner challenges this order solely on the ground that the rates were earlier enhanced in the year 1980 and could not be enhanced for a further period for four years and in support of his contention reliance is placed on D. K. Trivedi and Sons and others etc. etc. Vs. State of Gujarat and other (1 ). The petitioner further states that before the registration of the lease deed the petitioner was pressed to agree to pay a dead rent at the rate of Rs. 68,000/- which was arrived at after calculating the dead rent according to Annex. 4 and for that purpose the petitioner acted on the dictates of the Superintending Engineer and the undertaking is placed as Annex. 5. It is stated in paragraph 8 that it was only after giving this undertaking Annex. 5 the lease deed came to be registered on 9. 11. 1982 and the petitioner was permitted to commence the mining operations. On 10. 5. 1983 an order was passed in supersession to the order Annex. 1 directing that a lease is sanctioned in favour of the petitioner for a period of ten years at an annual dead rent of Rs. 68,000/- and this is placed as Annex. 7. It is stated that Annex. 7 is wholly illegal,having no legal sanctity since the rights already stood granted to the petitioner and issuance of notice directing sanction of lease at the revised rate of Rs. 68,000/- was wholly uncalled for and requiring the petitioner to deposit the amount and to execute another agreement was bad in law. A notice dated 9. 6. 1983 (Annex. 8) is also challenged as illegal wherein the petitioner was dierected that in case the notice dated 9. 6. 1983 is not complied with the lease would be cancelled. There are few other notices which have been mentioned in the writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the order Annex. 4 and the notices Annexs. 7,8,9 and 10 be struck down as against the provisions of Rules 16 and 18 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules,1977 and a proper reading of these rules confers powers to fix or revise the rate of dead rent within the limits specified in the Second Schedule and no powers are conferred to revise the Second Schedule itself.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the matter involves a contractual obligation and cannot be enforced by way of a writ petition. It is further said that the petitioner cannot be permitted to come out of his own undertaking whereby he himself had agreed to pay the revised dead rent at the rate of Rs. 68,000/- per annum. My attention has been drawn to Annex. 5 i. e. undertaking dated 3. 11. 1982 and the lease deed executed thereafter and registered on 6. 11. 1982. The petitioner, thus, argues the learned counsel, cannot back out from the undertaking. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition is wholly misconceived. The petitioner having further himself accepted the revised terms and having further undertaken to pay the revised rates cannot be permitted to go back on the principle of estoppel. Further, the points raised in the writ petition pertain to the contractual obligations arising between the parties out of agreed terms and conditions and are not open for challenge under writ jurisdiction. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner also fails that since the rates had been revised in the year 1980 this could not be revised before four years as held in the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted above. That decision does not help the petitioner at all. In my opinion, the contract cannot be said to have come into existence prior to the lease deed and its registration and by that time the order Annex. 4 had already come into operation and the petitioner with wide eyes open accepted the revised rates and only thereafter he was permitted to operate the mining operations. The petitioner is, thus, estopped from raising any plea in respect of the lease deed,the agreement and the revised rates by way of this petition. The impugned orders and notices are, thus, perfectly in order and no fault can be found with these orders and notices. ;