Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by Shree Ram Toll Tax and Royalty Collection Contract Company, Hindaun City, challenging the correctness of the order dated 29.06.2000 (Annexure -9) passing by the Mining Engineer, Karauli, and order dated 23.07.2002 (Annexure -11) passed by the State Government, with further prayer that action of the respondents in forfeiting the security of the petitioner be declared illegal and they may further be directed to reduce the amount of excess royalty collection contract proportionately to the forest area in respect of the petitioner.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that petitioner is a registered partnership firm having 13 partners. An auction notice was issued by the Mining Engineer, Karauli, which was published in daily newspaper Rajasthan Patrika on 11.04.1998, whereby bids were invited for excess royalty collection contract, which was in respect of excavation of mineral falling in the revenue boundary of village mentioned at serial No. 1 therein. Another auction notice was also issued on 20.05.1998. Petitioner participated in the auction proceedings took place on 22.06.1998. The bid of the petitioner, being the highest of Rs. 32,85,101/ - per annum, was accepted on 22.06.1998 itself. On completion of formalities, an agreement came to be executed on 01.07.1998, which was effective from 01.07.1998 to 30.06.2000. Thereafter, vide order dated 01.10.1999, the rate of royalty was increased, as a result of which excess royalty collection contract amount was also increased from Rs. 32,85,101/ - to Rs. 38,34,963/ -, with effect from 01.10.1999. The State Government also increased permit fee with effect from 01.01.2000, as a result of which the excess royalty collection contract amount was further increased to Rs. 4,01,314/ -. At the time of auction, it was made clear that the contract was for the area falling in the revenue boundary of the villages mentioned in the auction notice and not for any forest area. The Regional Forest Officer, Hindaun City, vide letter dated 19.06.1999 informed the petitioner about illegal mining going on in the area and asked the petitioner to take steps to stop the same. Reminder was also received by petitioner on 17.02.2000, wherein it was mentioned that 70% of the area in the revenue boundary of the villages mentioned in the auction notice, falls in the forest area and therefore, the petitioner was directed not to recover excess royalty in respect of minerals excavated from the forest area. The petitioner submitted a representation to the concerned Minister on 30.05.2000 for reducing the amount of royalty collection as the area has been reduced by 70% and the contract was given by the State Government on assumption that the mining activity would be undertaken in the revenue boundaries of the villages mentioned in the auction notice. The Mining Engineer concerned was called for to submit explanation and in response thereto, he replied vide letter dated 12.06.2000 that the factual aspect as stated by the petitioner was correct but stated that he was not competent to reduce the amount. Thereafter the Mining Engineer, Karauli, just before one day of completion of contract period, without giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner, cancelled the contract on 29.06.2000 and ordered for forfeiture of the security amount and further demanded arrears of royalty collection amounting to Rs. 9,91,229/ -. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1046/2002, which came to be decided by this court vide order dated 08.02.2002 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 30.05.2000 and ordered that no recovery shall be made from the petitioner till decision of the representation. The respondent No. 1, vide order dated 23.07.2002, rejected the representation of the petitioner. Hence this writ petition.
(3.) SHRI G.S. Bapna, learned senior counsel for petitioner, argued that in the contract that was entered between the petitioner and respondents, there was clear mention that the contract was in respect of excavation of mineral falling in the revenue boundary of villages mentioned in the auction notice. There was no mention that 70% of the area is falling within the forest land. The State Government ought to have disclosed this fact clearly in the notice inviting tender and thereafter in the contract. Since the auction for collection of the royalty was in respect of excavation of mineral falling in the revenue boundary of the villages mentioned therein, on reduction of the area thereof, the petitioner ought to be granted relaxation in the amount of royalty collection due to stoppage of mining activities in the large area on account of the order passed by the Supreme Court dated 12.12.1996 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202/1995 -T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad versus Union of India and others. It is contended that the petitioner on coming to know this fact, submitted representation. The Mining Department admitted that no mining operations could be carried on 60% of the area and therefore the representation of the petitioner dated 30.05.2000 ought to be accepted by the State Government and amount of royalty collection should have been reduced proportionately. In this connection, reference is made to Rule 75 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, which clearly provides that as and when the area of mining lease is reduced in size, the dead rent of such lease should also be reduced. On the same analogy, when the mining area is reduced, the royalty collation should also be reduced. The respondents made misrepresentation regarding the area of mining, which led to the petitioner making higher bid. The respondents have seriously erred in forfeiting the security amount of Rs. 4,10,638/ - as the same stood already adjusted towards the dues of the petitioner as per letter dated 10.08.1998. But for the subsequent period the excess royalty collection contract has been given for Rs. 22,21,000/ - per annum only as per order dated 01.11.2001, which fortified the claim of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel argued that the respondents have illegally cancelled the lease of the petitioner just one day before completion of contract period and this was done by them without any notice to the petitioner.;