KOKJE, J. - (1.) THE appellant aggrieved by the dismissal of writ petition by the learned Single Judge has filed this appeal.
(2.) THE appellant was granted a mining lease in the year 1983 under an agreement executed on June 12, 1983 and registered on August 22, 1983. THE respondent No. 5 Babulal Gupta who was also desirous of grant of same area of mining lease, had also applied for grant of lease on October 22, 1982 and January 19,1983. Both these applications were rejected and the said respondent No. 5 Babulal Gupta filed two appeals before the Additional Director Mines, Udaipur. THE appeals were also dismissed on August 12,1983. A further appeal was also taken to the State Government which was decided on July 3, 1984. THE appeal was partly allowed and operation of the area not covered by the lease agreement in favour of the appellant was directed to be granted to said respondent No. 5 Babu Lal Gupta. Not satisfied with the partial success of the appeal, the respondent No. 5 preferred a revision application under S. 13 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act of 1957' hereinafter ). Vide order dated March 12, 1987, the Central Government allowed the revision application and set aside the Order granting lease in favour of the appellant-original petitioner. THE case was remanded to the State Government for passing appropriate order on the application of respondent No. 5 on merits. This Order of the Central Government Was challenged in the Writ Petition, before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge by the order under appeal held that no interference was called for in the order of the Central Government and dismissed the writ petition. This is how the matter has come up in appeal before us. The area covered by the disputed lease was a part of the area granted by the mining lease in favour of one Rajesh Vardia during the period January 31, 1976 to December 17, 1979. According to the appellant that area became available for re-allotment on October 18, 1979 when it was declared free by the State Government. On July 12,1982, one Babulal Modi was declared eligible for entering into an agreement of mining lease with the State Government in respect of the portion of this area. An intimation of this grant was received by said Babulal Modi on August 16, 1982. Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 (for short 'the Rules' hereinafter), which were in force at the relevant [time, provided that where a lease was granted or renewed under the Rules, a formal lease in Form No. 8 shall be executed within three months from the date of receipt of the sanction by the applicant and if no such formal lease is executed within that period, the order granting lease shall be deemed to have been revoked. There is proviso to the aforesaid Rule enabling an authorised officer of the State Government to permit execution of the formal lease within a reasonable time after the expiry of the aforesaid period of three months, if he is satisfied that there were sufficient reasons to believe that the grantee was not responsible for the delay in the execution of the formal lease. The appellants contention is that on January 4, 1983 an entry was made in the register of mining lease showing the concerned area available for re-grant! After this, on January 19,1983 respondent No. 5 Babulal Gupta applied again for the same area which he had applied for on October 20, 1982. On the next day, appellant Ajeet Singh applied for mining lease in respect of the part of the area. On February 24, 1983, respondent No. 5 Babulal Gupta's first application dated October 20, 1982 was rejected as premature. On April 26, 1983 appellant- Ajeet Singh was sanctioned the lease for area applied for. On April 29, 1983 respondent No. 5 Babu Lal Gupta's second application dated. January 19, 1983 was rejected. On August 12, 1983 a formal lease deed was executed in favour of appellant Ajeet Singh. The Central Government held that the grant of mining lease in favour of Babu Lal Modi came to an end on October 12, 1982 when the period of three months from the date of sanction of lease expired. The Central Government also held that Rule 56 of the Rules did not apply in the case as it only applied to the cases where a] formal lease deed has been executed and possession of the area is given to the lessee. The learned Single Judge of this Court upheld the Order and dismissed the petition. On the question of the first application of respondent No. 5 Babu Lal Gupta dated October 20, 1982 being premature there appears little difficulty. Admittedly, sanction of the tease wt communicated to Babu Lal Modi on August 16, 1982. Three months period from this date expired on November 15, 1982. Any application prior to the lapse of right of Babu Lal Modi to get a formal lease deed executed in his favour would be premature. The language of Rule 19 clearly snows that the date of revocation of the grant or sanction of the lease would be the date on which the three months period within which the lease had to be executed, expires. The lease has to be executed under the rule within three months from the date of receipt of the sanction by the applicant. Therefore, months' period from the grant or sanction would expire on expiry of three the date of receipt of sanction by the applicant and not from the date of issue of grant or sanction itself.
(3.) AS regards second application of Respondent No. 5, Babulal Gupta dated January 19, 1983, the objection was that it was made Within 15 days of the date on which entry] was made in the Mining Register under R. 56 of the Rules and was therefore, premature. If this objection is upheld the appellant alone remains in the field having applied on January 20, 1983, on the 16th day of the entry made under R. 56 of the Rules. It was pointed out by the appellant that the State Government had admitted in its reply to the Writ Petition that entry in the register of mining lease showing the area as available for regrant was made on January 4, 1983 and copy of the order dated January 4, 1983 declaring the area being available for regrant was also annexed to the reply of the State Government as Annexure R/2. It was, therefore, contended that in compliance with R. 56, entry as to the area being available for regrant was made on January 4, 1983 and hence the area would be available for regrant on expiry of 15 days from January 4, 1983. Any application made on January 19,1983 would therefore be premature and the first date on which the application could be made was January 20, 1983 on which date the appellant had applied. We need not go into the question whether under R. 56 any application made within 15 days of the entry in mining lease register would be premature as we are of the view that R. 56 has no application to this case for reasons stated hereinafter. A bare reading of R. 56 of the Rules would show that it has no application to the cases where a formal lease-deed was not executed. For the application of the Rule the area must have been previously held under mining lease or rent-cum-royalty lease. The rule requires that any entry in the mining lease register declaring the area to be available for regrant shall be made at lease three months before the date of expiry of original lease or within 15 days from the receipt of the determination order as the case may be. This clearly indicates that the rule applies to duly executed lease only and does not apply to a case where lease-deed is not executed. In a case of lapse of sanction or a right to the grant of a lease because of deemed revocation of the sanction or grant under R. 19 of the Rules, compliance with Rule 56 is not necessary. That is the plain meaning of the language of the Rule and it is salutary rule of interpretation that when the language of the provision is plain and inambiguous, there is no scope for addition or subtraction of words to put a different construction. on it. It was also contended that even though R. 19 of the Rules provides for deemed revocation some form of notice to concerned members of the public is necessary as in distribution of public largess equal opportunity to compete has to be given to all concerned. In the facts and circumstances of the case, both the contending parties had applied for grant of lease and no one has complained of any prejudice because of ignorance of the area being available for regrant. ;