Hon'ble VYAS, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 09.08.2004 passed by the respondent department whereby application of the petitioner for allotment of mine is rejected.
(2.) ACCORDING to facts of the case set out in the writ petition, the respondent Department issued notification dated 20.10.1998 published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary dated 23.02.1998 whereby certain area was declared free for grant of mining lease for mineral 'dolomite'. The said notification was issued in exercise of power under Rule 75 of the Rajasthan Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 vide Annex.-1 to the writ petition. Upon perusal of the said notification it is revealed that certain land earlier reserved for prospecting and mining was declared free by the government for grant of mining leases and it was provided vide the notification that for the purpose of issuing sanction whatever amount the State Government has spent on the area the same shall be deposited with the government treasury. The petitioner applied for grant of mining lease for the mineral dolomite in the area village Indon-ki-Talai, Hem Singhjiki- Dhani, Jodhpur (M.L. No.5/98). In the application which was submitted before the Asstt. Mining Engineer, Balesar on 17.07.1998 the petitioner submitted all the documents showing status/position of the land and, so also, the required affidavits. The petitioner also deposited a sum of Rs.1,500/- as the requisite fee. It is submitted by the petitioner that his application for grant of mining lease was complete in all respects and, therefore, he was certain for the same to be granted in his favour. He repeatedly knocked the door of the respondent; but, it was informed to him that his application was in process for the grant of the lease and necessary orders will be sent to his residence. It was also told by the respondents that the petitioner need not approach the office again and again. It is submitted by the petitioner that upon the assurance of the respondents he was certain for the decision in his favour. It is stated in the writ petition that as a measure of abundant caution, the Asstt. Mining Engineer, Balesar wrote a letter on 16.11.1998 to the Divisional Forest Officer to ascertain and give report whether the area applied for by the petitioner at all falls in the forest area or not. In pursuance of the said letter dated 16.11.1998, it was informed by the Divisional Forest Officer vide letter dated 06.02.1999 after making all necessary enquiries that the area applied for by the petitioner does not fall in the forest area. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that after near about 7 years since the petitioner applied for the mining lease, now, by impugned order dated 09.08.2004, the application of the petitioner has been rejected. Vide the impugned order dated 09.08.2004, it is stated that no lease can be granted for mineral dolomite as per policy decision taken by the government that mining lease for dolomite mineral shall not be granted to private individuals and the same was reserved for excavation by the government itself. The petitioner is challenging the validity of the said order on the ground that the reason which is mentioned in Annex.-5 is totally false and wrong because vide notification published on 23.02.1998 the area for which the petitioner applied was declared free for the purpose of mining. The relevant extract of the notification dated 23.02.1998 reads as under : *****
(3.) IN this notification, it is further specifically mentioned that whatever amount the State Government has spent for the aforesaid area the same shall be required to be deposited in the government treasury. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that while exercising power under Section 75 of the Rules of 1960 the said notification was issued and application was filed by various persons inter alia the petitioner; however, while narrating wrong facts in the impugned order the application filed by the petitioner was rejected and it is ordered that the amount deposited by the petitioner is also forfeited. A pointed query was made to the counsel for the State whether any policy decision was taken by the government after issuance of the said notification. Upon that, the learned Deputy Government Advocate has filed an affidavit and placed on record two documents dated 18.08.1981 and 05.04.2007 and stated that in the year 1981 the said decision was taken by the government not to grant lease of dolomite mines to private individuals and reserved mineral dolomite for exclusive working in public sector undertaking. No notification or policy decision after issuance of the notification dated 23.02.1998 is filed. So also, in the communication dated 05.02.2007, it is informed by the Mining Department that the application is rejected only on the basis of letter dated 18.08.1981 issued on the basis of some policy decision taken to keep mineral dolomite reserved for working in the public sector undertakings. The Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted while filing reply that the area marked upon for departmental prospecting work was also reserved and vide notification dated 23.02.1998 it was declared free for the grant of mining lease; but, no such licence was granted to any person for prospecting mineral dolomite. It is further submitted that any person could apply under the existing policy. ;