JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners are sons of late Raj Bahadur Ram Prasadji Rajgarhia who had applied for grant of mining lease for mica on 10-9-1972, an area of 853.33 acres near village Gundi and Gokalpura in Distt. Bhilwara. The said application was not disposed of within 12 months of the date of application and. therefore. the application was deemed to have been refused under rule 24(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. A revision petition was filed before the Central Government on 26-11-1973. The Central Government vide its order dated 28-5-1974, accepted the revision petition and directed the State of Rajasthan to pass appropriate orders on the application dated 10-9-1972 within a period of four months, on 27-9-1974. He was granted mining lease for the area of 553.37 acres. Raj Bahadur Ram Prashad Rajgarhia expired on 21-4-1975 before the lease agreement could be executed. The State of Rajasthan informed the Director, Mines & Geology Department, Udaipur vide its letter dated 18-5-1976 that it has no objection if the lease deed is executed between the State of Rajasthan and the legal representatives of Raj Bahadur Ram Prashadji Rajgarhia, i.e. the petitioners in this writ petition. The Mining Engineer asked the petitioners to submit succession certificate and also to deposit Rs. 1,000/- as security and submit non judicial stamps worth Rs. 504/-. The succession certificate was submitted to the Mining Engineer, Bhilwara on 6-5-1978 and completed other formalities as well. Thereupon the lease-deed was executed by the petitioners before the Mining Engineer, Bhilwara in June 1978 and forwarded to the Director, Mines & Geology Department. Udaipur for getting it completed. The petitioner sent reminders, but without any result. The Government of Rajasthan vide its order dated 13-2-1980, revoked the order granting mining lease on the basis of the Government circular dated 3-7-1978. The present writ petition has been directed against the said order of the State Government dated 13-2-1980, revoking the grant of mining lease and also seeking to quash the Central Government circular dated 3-7-1978. It has been urged that in view of amendment in the Rules, the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in C Bachi Venkatarao v. Union of India ( AIR 1972 SC 1324 ) , which is based on old unamended rules are not applicable and, therefore. the State Government should not have placed any reliance on the circular dated 3-7-1978. It has been urged that in view of amendment in the Rules, the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in C Bachi Venkatarao v. Union of India ( AIR 1972 SC 1324 ) , which is based on old unamended rules are not applicable and, therefore. the State Government should not have placed any reliance on the circular dated 3-7-1978. The State of Rajasthan has filed reply to the writ petition and has relied on Rule 13 of the Mining Concession Rules, 1960. It has been admitted that Rule 13 (2) and 13 (3) were amended by the notification dated 12-11-1970, but there has been no change in the meaning and spirit of the rule. 2. I have heard the arguments on behalf of the petitioners and have also gone through the record of the case and given my thoughtful consideration to the whole matter. 3. Before I deal with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for he parties, it would be proper to reproduce Rules 13 and 58 of the Mining Concession Rules, 1960:- "13. Refund of fee -(I) where an application for the grant of a prospecting licence is refused or deemed to have been refused under these rules, the fee paid by the applicant shall be refunded to the applicant. 2. Where an applicant for the grant of a prospecting licence dies before the order granting him a prospecting licence is passed, his application for the grant of a prospecting licence shall be deemed to have been rejected and the fee paid by him shall be refunded to his legal representative. 3. In the case of all applicant in respect of whom an order granting a prospecting licence is passed out who dies before the deed referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule 15 is executed, the order shall be deemed to have been revoked on the occurrence of the death and the fee paid shall be refunded to the legal representative of the deceased." "58. Availability of areas for regrant to be notified:- No area which was previously held or which is bring held under a prospecting licence or a mining lease or in respect of which an order had been made for the grant thereof but the applicant has died before the execution of a licence or lease, as the case may be, or in respect of which the order granting licence or lease has been revoked under sub-rule (1) of rule 15 or sub-rule (1) of rule 31, shall be available for grant unless- (a) an entry to the effect is made in the register referred to in sub-rule (2) of rule 21 or sub-rule (2) of rule 40, as the case may be, in ink ; and (b) the (late from which the area shall be available for grant is notified in the official Gazette at least thirty days in advance." 4. There were amendments in the year 1970 and 1971 and after the amendment the existing rules are as under:- "13. Refund of fee:- (1) Where an application for the grant of a prospecting licence is refused or deemed to have been refused under these rules the fee paid by the applicant shall be refunded to the applicant. 2. where an applicant for the grant of a prospecting licence dies before the order granting him a prospecting licence is passed, his application for the grant of a prospecting licence (shall be deemed to have been made by his legal representative) 3. In the case of an applicant in respect of whom an order granting prospecting licence is passed but who dies before the deed referred to in sub-rule (1 ) of rule 15 is executed, (the order shall be deemed to have been passed in the name of the legal representative of the deceased). 4. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (I) where an application for grant or renewal of a prospecting licence is refused on account of (any lapse on the part of the applicant in suppressing any material information while making an application under rule 9) the fees paid by the applicant shall be forfeited to the State Government." "58. 4. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (I) where an application for grant or renewal of a prospecting licence is refused on account of (any lapse on the part of the applicant in suppressing any material information while making an application under rule 9) the fees paid by the applicant shall be forfeited to the State Government." "58. Availability of areas for regrant to be notified:- (1) No area which was previously held or which is being held under a prospecting licence or a mining lease, as the case may be, or in respect of which the order granting licence or lease has been revoked under sub-rule 1. of rule 15 or sub-rule (I) of rule 31, shall be available for grand unless (a) an entry to the effect made in the register referred to in sub-rule (2) of rule 21 or sub-rule (2) of rule 40, as the case may be in ink, and (b) the date from which the area shall be available for grant is notified in the Official Gazette at least thirty days in advance. 2. The Central Government, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax the provisions of sub-rule (1) in any special case." 5. In the original rule 13 (3) it was specifically mentioned that in the case of an applicant in respect of whom an order granting a prospective licence is passed, died before the deed is executed the orders shall be deemed to have been revoked on the occurrence of the death. Whereas after the amendment Rule 13 provides that instead of order having been deemed to have been revoked, the order shall be deemed to have been passed in the. name of the legal representative of the deceased. Similarly, in the old rule 53, the words "in respect of whit. It an order has been made for the- grant thereof, but the applicant has died before the execution of licence or lease," have been deleted. In the present case, Raj Bahadur Ram Prasadji Rajgarhia expired on 21-4-1975, after the amendment in the rules. Even the application for grant of Mining lease was moved on 10-9-1972, after the amendments in the rules, and therefore, the present case is governed by the amended rules. In the present case, Raj Bahadur Ram Prasadji Rajgarhia expired on 21-4-1975, after the amendment in the rules. Even the application for grant of Mining lease was moved on 10-9-1972, after the amendments in the rules, and therefore, the present case is governed by the amended rules. The order of the Central Government dated 3-7-1978 is with regard to one particular person Shri Ram Chander Saini for a particular licence and cannot be taken as a general circular and should not apply for taking a decision in the present case. The State Government should also ignore it. Moreover, in the said order dated 3-7-1978, reference has been trade to the decision of the Supreme Court in C.B. Rao v. Union of India (Supra) It was a Case in which the Supreme Court had considered the old rule 13 before amendment. After the amendment, the observations of the Supreme Court 'in C.B. Rao' case had lost its force and were not at all applicable and therefor the order dated 3-7-1978. will not he a guide in the present case. The State Government while passing the order dated 11-8-1970 Ex 6. has completely ignored the amendment made in the rules and therefore, that order cannot stand and has to be quashed. The intention of the rule-making authority is quite clear. They made the amendment in Rules 13 and 15. The order dated 3-7-1978, Ex. 8, cannot be termed as a circular and cannot be relied upon by the State Government passing an order like Ex. 6 dated 8-2-1980. 6. In view of the observations made above, the Order of the State Government No. Pa-2/94 Khan/Gr. 4/73 dated 8.2.1980, Ex. 8 is hereby quashed the writ petition is allowed with no orders as to costs. *******