- (1.) In Charles Dickens' novel Oliver Twist, Oliver made the fatal mistake of asking the In-charge of the orphanage for a second helping of soup. Oliver Twist was castigated for his audacity. Similarly, in the present case the petitioner has audaciously requested for the renewal of his mining licence. He has suffered the same fate. Vide order dated 10-8-2007, the petitioner's application for renewal of mining lease has not only been rejected, but security amount has also been forfeited. Like poor Oliver Twist, the petitioner is also hoping that he will see better days ahead.
(2.) This petition involves very short controversy, namely, whether the respondents are justified in rejecting an application for renewal of mining lease without following the procedure established in Rule 26 of the Mineral Concessions Rules,1960 ('the Rules' for short) or not Since the controversy is very short, only the bare facts are narrated herein below. As far back as on 2-8-1985, the State Government had granted mining lease to the petitioner for mining mineral silica sand, china clay, mineral activities near village Bilang Tehsil Kaman, District Bharatpur. The lease was to come into effect from 22-8-1985. The mining area was spread out in 245.71 hectare of land. The lease was for a period of 20 years. Thus, the lease period was to come to an end on 21-8-2005. During this period, in order to develop the mine, the petitioner invested crores of rupees. He not only constructed roads, developed infrastructure facilities, but also introduced machinery and vehicles. He planted trees and erected buildings for administrative officers. Till 2005, the petitioner spent about Rs. 4,53,77,038. According to the petitioner, for his development and maintenance of the mines, he had been lauded by Indian Bureau of Mines and the Director General of Mines.
(3.) A year before the lease period was to end, on 14-7-2004, the petitioner applied for renewal of the lease-deed. However, instead of objectively considering the petitioner's application, the respondents No. 3, 5 and 6 started threatening the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6908/2005. Vide order dated 31-8-2005, this Court granted an interim stay in the petitioner's favour and directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to operate the mines and to excavate silica sand upto capacity of 80 MT per day. Vide notice dated 14-10-2005, the respondents directed the petitioner to comply with certain conditions for the purpose of grant of renewal of lease-deed. According to the petitioner, the said notice has been issued under Rule 26(3) of the Rules. However, according to the petitioner the requirement of law is that prior to issuance of notice under Rule 26(3), a notice under Rule 26(1) has to be issued. But according to the petitioner, no notice under Rule 26(1) has ever been issued to him. However, the respondents claim that they did send a notice under Rule 26(1) of the Rules to petitioner on 14-10- 2005. We shall revert back to this aspect, since the entire controversy revolves around non compliance of Rule 26(1) of the Rules. It is further the case of the petitioner that vide letter dated 11-5- 2007, the respondents threatened the petitioner that in case certain irregularities, allegedly committed by him, are not removed, then they would be compelled to reject the application for renewal and to forfeit the security amount. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said notice/ letter dated 11-5-2007, he filed another writ petition before this Court, registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5772/2007. Since the respondents were agitated by the fact that every time the petitioner would rush to the refuge of this Court, vide order dated 10-8-2007, they rejected the petitioner's application for renewal of licence and forfeited the security amount. Hence, this petition before this Court.;