MAHESHWARI, J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions having similar facts and involving an identical issue regarding interpretation of Clause (vii) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1986 have been heard together; and are taken up for disposal by this common order.
(2.) THE Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1986 ('the Rules of 1986' hereafter) have been made by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 for regulating the grant of quarry licences, mining leases, and other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for connected purposes. Chapter-III of the Rules of 1986 deals with grant of quarry licences wherein Rule 22 provides that no quarry licence shall be granted for any mineral deposit unless it is notified by the Mining Engineer/assistant Mining Engineer after due approval of the Director in the Gazette or in the newspaper as provided therein; and such notification is to be made after delineating the plots of quarries and is required to mention the dimension of area for each licence; but such notification may not be necessary for the areas in respect of which Rent-cum-Royalty leases had been granted earlier and had been converted into quarry licences in accordance with the Rules. THE said Rule 22 also provides for maximum number of the licences that will be issued to a person and also for restriction on grant of licence to a person standing in dues with the Department. Rule 23 provides for the form of an application for grant of quarry licence, the documents required to be submitted therewith, and the requisite fees; Rule 24 provides for maintaining of the register of quarry licence applications and the register of quarry licences issued; Rule 25 provides for minimum and maximum area under a quarry licence; and Rule 26 provides for the procedure for grant and renewal of quarry licence. Rule 27 with which we are concerned in these matters provides for reservation and preferential right of certain categories of persons for grant of quarry licences when a new block of quarry is delineated in respect of minerals other than those specified therein and as per the percentage indicated. Rule 27 (1) as in operation at the relevant time read as under:- ''27. Reservation and preferential right of certain categories of persons:- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, when a new block of quarries is delineated, quarry licences for minerals other than marble, dolomite, rhyolite, granite, serpentine, diorite and any other rock used for slab or tile making shall be kept reserved for the following categories of persons as per percentage indicated against each category:- (i) Manual workers belonging to Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes / Other Backward Classes employed in mines. 10% (ii) Manual workers other than Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes / Other Backward Classes 20% (iii) Persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes / Other Backward Classes 20% (iv) Persons selected under ''integrated Rural Development Program'' or ''antyodaya Yojana'' of the State Government. 10% (v) Village artisans and land-less labourers. 10% (vi) Ex-soldiers including members of para military forces belonging to Rajasthan who have been permanently disabled and the dependents of those who have been killed in action. 10% (vii) Rajasthan State Government servants who have become permanently disabled while on duty or the dependents of those who have been killed while on duty 10%; and (viii) Other applicants. 10%'' It appears that in a mining area situated at Bhomiyaji- Ka-Than within the jurisdiction of the Assistant Mining Engineer, Balesar District Jodhpur certain plots of quarries were delineated for the purpose of grant of quarry licences in accordance with the categories provided by Rule 27 aforesaid. Quarry No. 2365 and No. 2368, amongst others, were reserved for the category number (vii) applicants i. e. , the Rajasthan State Government servants who have become permanently disabled while on duty or the dependents of those who have been killed while on duty. Late Shri Padam Singh, father of the petitioner Arjun Singh (CWP No. 5409/2006) and husband of the petitioner Tara Kanwar (CWP No. 5423/2006) was in the State Government service as Head Constable No. 558 and, on 21. 11. 1989, while being posted at Dhola Jagir Polling Booth in Lok Sabha Election Duty as a part of Polling Party No. 962, died for heart failure. The case of the petitioners herein is that they made applications for grant of quarry licences in relation to the aforesaid Quarry No. 2365 and No. 2368 respectively when the applications were invited for the purpose on 23. 02. 1998. According to the petitioners, on their applications neither any sanction was conveyed nor rejection and, upon enquiry, it was given out that no action was being taken on their applications for their failure to adduce adequate proof of falling in category No. (vii) aforesaid. According to the petitioners, on 11. 12. 2000, they were informed upon visit to the office of the respondent No. 4, the Assistant Mining Engineer that the quarries in question had again been notified under a Notice Inviting Applications dated 26. 02. 2000 with the stipulation that all the previous applications stood rejected. While challenging the notification dated 26. 02. 2000, the petitioners filed respective appeals before the Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur who proceeded to dismiss such appeals by similar nature orders dated 22. 01. 2002 particularly with the finding that the petitioners were not falling in the said category No. (vii) because the deceased employee Padam Singh was not killed while on duty but died of natural death for heart failure. . The petitioners allege that the appeals were dismissed without even supplying the copy of reply filed by the respondent No. 4 and without hearing their counsel The petitioners have pointed out that while their appeals were dismissed on 22. 01. 2002, the very next day the Assistant Mining Engineer concerned proceeded to sanction the respective quarries in favour of the persons joined as respondent Nos. 5 in each of these writ petitions. The petitioners submitted respective second appeals against the orders dated 22. 01. 2002 so passed by the Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur and so also preferred respective revision petitions against the order issued by the Assistant Mining Engineer, Balesar on 23. 01. 2002 making sanction in favour of the private respondents. In the case of Arjun Singh (CWP No. 5409/2006) the Dy. Secretary to the Government has dismissed the appeal (No. 24/2002) and revision petition (No. 19/2003) by a common order dated 05. 09. 2006 (Annex. 12); and in the case of Smt. Tara Kanwar (CWP No. 5423/2006) has similarly dismissed the appeal (No. 25/2002) and revision petition (No. 20/2003) by a similar nature order of the even date (Annex. 14 ). In both the cases, the learned Dy. Secretary has been of the opinion that the petitioners were not falling in the aforesaid category No. (vii) of Rule 27 (1) as the employee concerned died for a natural death and it could not be taken that he was killed while on duty. Certain other orders as made in relation to other persons were sought to be referred but the learned Dy. Secretary observed that the records pertaining to such other cases were not produced nor such orders were put to challenge and even if there had been some mistake in relation to any other person, the same could not be repeated. The relevant portion of the order dated 05. 09. 2006 as made in the case of the petitioner Smt. Tara Kanwar (CWP No. 5423/2006) reads as under:- ***********
(3.) IT may be pointed out that in the petition relating to CWP No. 5423/2006 an additional fact has been stated that the respondent No. 5 allottee submitted a false affidavit for grant of quarry licence while asserting that she had not been sanctioned any other quarry in any area though the fact remained that she had been granted quarry No. 515 in Kalore- A area under the order dated 22. 06. 1995. Be that as it may, this fact has only been noticed and else shall have no bearing on the questions involved in the case because this aspect seems not to have been put in issue before the mining authorities. Essentially the case of the petitioners has been that they were entitled to be considered as the applicants falling in category No. (vii) aforesaid. Assailing the orders aforesaid, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the aforesaid Rule 27 (1) and particularly category No. (vii) has already been considered and interpreted by this Court in the case of Budh Mal and others vs. State of Rajasthan and another: 2001 WLC (Raj.) UC 738 and, for the said Rule having been held valid and found having its nexus to social welfare, there is no reason that the same be given restricted meaning and as to why the same be not given the fullest effect. According to the learned counsel, even when the said rule carries the expression 'killed', in its context, the expression covers all the cases of the employees dying while on duty particularly when the purpose of the provision is to extend support to the needy dependents of government servants. Learned counsel submitted that there is no warrant for interpretation that the Government servant must have been killed by some other person so that the case would fall in category No. (vii) but, according to the learned counsel, when a Government servant perishes while discharging duties, in the true operation of the Rule, his dependents are entitled to be considered in category No. (vii) aforesaid. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents and the learned Govt. Counsel, while supporting the orders impugned, submitted that the cons-cious use of the expression ''killed while on duty'' makes it clear that not all the cases of the Government servants dying while on 9 duty are intended to be covered under the said category No. (vii ). Learned counsel for the respondents would maintain that a person gets killed only by some external force or act and it is only for the dependants of such category of the employees of the State Government that the Rule intends to provide some reservation. According to the learned counsel, for the interpretation as made, where the provision contained in Rule 27 (1) (vii) has been considered by this Court akin to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the said decision in Budh Mal's case (supra) rather operates in favour of the respondents. ;