M.L. Jain, J. - (1.) The facts of this petition appear to be that the petitioner M/S. Udaipur Mines through its proprietor Narotam Swaroop Bhatnagar, R/o. Udaipur had a prospecting licence for soap store mines situated in village Karcha, Tehsil Kherwara, District Udaipur for an area of 189.043 hectares. The certificate of approval was renewed by the Mining Engineer. Udaipur upto 21.12.1972 The petitioner applied fur the grant of mining lease on 29.4.1972. It may be noticed here that the application which in original was shown to me by the learned Dy. Government Advocate, was not in the form as it stood amended on 23.5.1970. In pursuance of the newly added clause (d) in sub rule 3 of Rule 22 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the applicant was required to file a copy of a valid clearance certificate of mining dues, vide item No (via). However, the Mining Engineer, Udaipur, by his letter dated 24.6.1972 wrote to the applicant that a discrepancy ticked at item No. 20, was found in his application namely; "20, A sum of Rs. 15,22,20 is outstanding against the M.L.N./V Sonaria' please deposit the same so that necessary action to consider the above application be taken." The Mining Engineer also asked the applicant to complete the above noted discrepancy within a period of 7 days positively from the date of the receipt of the letter failing which the application will be disposed of as per rule. The petitioner instead of doing what he was asked to do, sent a reply on 30.6.1972, that when he made the application on 29.4.1972, there were no dues outstanding against him and his application was registered. Any dues found outstanding thereafter cannot affect the valid registration. More over, the dues have no connection with the area applied for it appears that this protest did not find favour with the State Government and in exercise of its powers under Rule 26 of the aforesaid Rules, the State Government rejected the application of the petitioner by its order dated March 2, 1973, for the reason that; - "The party submitted the application on 29.4.1972 which was found incomplete." Against this refusal, the petitioner filed a revision application on April 7, 1973 before the Central Government. He urged before that Government that under Sec. 11 of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, he had a preferential right to obtain the mining lease of the area of which he held a prospecting licence His application was rejected on a vague ground without mentioning in what respect his application was found wanting. The State Government in its comments stated that the application was not accompanied by a valid clearance certificate. He was given an opportunity to clear the dues by the Mining Engineer, vide letter dated 24 -6 -1972, but he did not care to clear the dues. He had also applied for some sort of stay but his application was rejected by the Central Government on 22 -6 -1973. There after the State Government declared the area fee for regrant on 11 -7 -74 and granted a mining lease in favour of the respondent No. 5 Kantilal Shah on 15 -4 -1975 for a period of 20 years. The Central Government held that the State Government had rightly rejected the application and dismissed the revision application on 24 -10 -1975.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed for the quashing of the order of the State Govt. dated 2 -3 -1973, the order of the Central Govt. dated 24 -10 -1974 & the lease granted to Kantilal Shah on 15 -4 -75. It was further prayed that the State Government be directed to grant a lease of the said area in dispute to the petitioner.
(3.) The contention of the State Government is that at the time the petitioner submitted his application, an amount of Rs. 152220 was outstanding against him in respect of the royalty assessment for the period 14 -1 -1971 to 13 -1 -1972 in respect of the mining lease near village Sonaria. The assessment was made on 3 -4 -1972 and the petitioner was informed by the Mining Engineer on 15 -4 -1972. When the payment was not made, a letter dated 24 -6 -1972 was issued inviting his attention to complete the discrepancy but he failed to do so.;