JUDGMENT 1. - Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the petitioner-appellant, Prakash Chand, and respondent No. 5 B. N. Pareek had submitted applications fur grant of prospecting licence with regard to silica sand in some areas situated in Tehsil Jarnwa Ramgarh, District Jaipur. It appears that the Government did not pass any order on the applications within a period of nine months; and, as such, both the parties filed revision before the Centeral Government against the deemed refusal under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concesion Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to ai; the Rules). Thereafter the State Government sanctioned prospecting licence in favour of the petitioner, Prakash Chand, by order dated 26th February, 1969. An agreement in pursuance to the aforesaid order was also executed or, 10th March, 1969. Thereafter when the revision filed by the petitioner, Prakash Chand, came up for consideration before the Central Government, an order was passed on 19th July, 1969, to the following effect as under : "I am directed to refer to your revision application dated 27-12-68, on the above subject, and to say that as the area has already been sanctioned in your favour, your revision application has become infructuous and as such it has been filed." 2. The Central Government then considered the revision applications filed by respondent No. 5, Shri B. N. Pareek and by order dated 23rd February, 1970, granted prospecting licence to the respondents for silica-sand over an area of 260.4 hectares in village and Taluk Jamwa Ratngarli, District Jaipur. The petitioner, in view of these circumstances, filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the order of the Central Government dated 23rd February, 1970 (Antrx/8) granting prospecting licence in favour of Shri Pareek. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 23rd February, 1973, dismissed the the writ petition filed by the petitioner. In these circumstances, this special appeal, under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, has been filed by the petitioner, Prakash Chand. 3. It was contended by Mr. Garg, the learned counsel for the appellant that the State Government had power to grant prospecting licence in favour of the petitioner even after the deemed refusal of the application filed by the petitioner and respondent No. 5. 3. It was contended by Mr. Garg, the learned counsel for the appellant that the State Government had power to grant prospecting licence in favour of the petitioner even after the deemed refusal of the application filed by the petitioner and respondent No. 5. It is submitted that order dated 26th February, 1969, passed by the State Government by which prospecting licence was granted in favour of the petitioner was within the competence of the State Government. It is further argued that, in the alternative, if the order dated 26th February, 1969, granting prospecting licence in favour of the petitioner on 26th February, 1969, is taken to be without jurisdiction, the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 54 of the Rules ought to have been taken as dismissed as the Central Government had dismissed the revision merely on the ground that the area had already been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Central Government in its order dated 23rd February, 1970 (Anna/8) had not considered the revision filed by the petitioner merely on the ground that the same has not been kept alive and the merits of the petitioner for grant of prospecting licence were not considered in camparison to respondent No. 5. It is, thus, argued that even if the order dated 26th February, 1961, is considered to be without jurisdiction, the Central Government ought to have considered the revision filed by the petitioner and should have decided. the same on merits. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, has submitted that he revision filed by the petitioner had already been dismissed by the Central Government by order dated 19th July, 1969 and there was no question of considering the said revision again on merits. In these circumstances, the Central Government was right in holding that the revision filed by the petitioner had lapsed and there was no mistake thereafter in granting prospecting licence in favour of the respondent. Mr. Tiwari further submitted that in the order dated 23rd February, 1970, the Central Government has observed in the following mariner : "The Central Government have carefully considered the grounds of revision application. comments and counter-comments of the impleaded party and the State Government and your counter comments thereon." It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Mr. Tiwari further submitted that in the order dated 23rd February, 1970, the Central Government has observed in the following mariner : "The Central Government have carefully considered the grounds of revision application. comments and counter-comments of the impleaded party and the State Government and your counter comments thereon." It is, thus, submitted by Mr. Tiwari that the above observations made in the order, Annexure/8, clearly go to show that the Central Government had considered the comparative merits and demerits of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 and had thereafter granted prospecting licence in favour of respondent No. 5 finding him more suitable than the petitioner. 5. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and have thoroughly gone through the record. It has been authoritatively laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in (1) Nookala Setharamaiah v. Kotaiah Naidu and others ( AIR 1970 SC 1354 ) that the deemed refusal under Rule 57(2) if read with the mandate given to the State Government under Rule 28 (1A) requiring it to dispose of the application within nine months of the receipt of the application takes away the right of the State Government to grant the lease asked for. Their Lordship, of the Supreme Court took a different view from the Patna High Court expressed in (2) Dey Gupta and Co. v. State of Bihar (AIR 1961 Patna 487) and approved the Andhra Pradesh view in Writ Petition No. 888 of 197 (Andhra Pradesh High Court). Thus, it has been laid down that after the lapse of a period prescribed under Rule 28 (1A), the State Government had no jurisdiction to dispose of the application if it was not disposed of within a period of nine months. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court, there is no scope for the argument made on behalf of the appellant that the State Government had jurisdiction to grant prospecting licence to the petitioner- appellant by order dated 26th February, 1969, after the lapse of a period of nine months of the receipt of the application. The learned Single Judge had also relied upon the above Supreme Court decision and, there is no question of taking a different view. The learned Single Judge had also relied upon the above Supreme Court decision and, there is no question of taking a different view. In this view of the matter, it is held that the State Government had no jurisdiction to grant prospecting licence to the petitioner by its order dated 26th February, 1969. 6. The next question which calls for consideration is whethar the revision filed by the petitioner will be deemed to have lapsed or will revive in the circumstances of the case. The facts which are undisputed go to show that the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed as having become infructuous by the Central Government as the area had already been sanctioned by the State Government in favour of the petitioner. The order dated 19th July, 1969, passed by the Central Government in this regard has been quoted above, which clearly goes to show that the revision application filed by the petitioner was filed as having become infructuous as the area had alreaay been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. This order clearly goes to show that the revision filed by the petitioner was not decided on merits, but was held to be infrnctuous simply on the ground that the area has been subsequently sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. The Central Government while considering the revision filed by the respondent did not take into consineration the revision filed by the petitioner on the ground that the said application has not been kept alive by the petitioner and the same had lapsed, while the revision filed by Shri Parcek has been kept alive by filing a revision against the deemed rejection In our view, when the revision filed by the petitioner was not decided on merits, but was held to be infructuous merely on the ground that the area has been sanctioned in his favour and when the Central Government was taking the view that the State Government had no jurisdiction to grant any sancticn in favour of the petitioner, after a period of nine months, then, it was not justified in not considering the revision on merits filed by the petitioner. The revision filed by the petitioner had become infructuous on the ground that the area has been sanctioned in his favour. The revision filed by the petitioner had become infructuous on the ground that the area has been sanctioned in his favour. The Central Government while holding that the area sanctioned in favour of the petitioner by the State Government, was illegal, then the revision filed by the petitioner automatically revived and should have been disposed of on merits. We see no force in the contention of Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents that the Central Government while passing the order dated 23rd February, 1970, had considered the case of the petitioner qua respondent No. 5, on merits. Mr. Tiwari has laid great emphasis on the observations made by the Central Government in the order dated 23rd February, 1970 that, "the Central Government have carefully considered the grounds of revision petition, comments and counter comments of the impleaded patty and the State Government and the counter comments there- on". We are clearly of the opinion that a reading of the entire order dated 23rd February. 1970, leaves no manner of doubt that the Cenral Government had not considered the merits of the case of the petitioner with regard to the grant of prospecting licence in his favour. Order dated 23rd February, 1970, shows that after making the above observations the Central Government held that the State Government had no jurisdiction to pass an order granting prospecting licence in favour of the petitioner after expiry of 12 months from the date of the application. The Central Government then observed that after taking into account the various Courts decisions, it was concluded that the State Government had no jurisdiction to pass any order on an application after the prescribed period (9 months or 12 months) is over. Thereafter, it was observed that on this interpretation the application filed by Mr. Pareek has been kept alive by filing a revision against the deemed rejection in another case. whereas Shri Jain (the petitioner), the impleaded party had not done so and, therefore his application has lapsed and the grant order and prospecting licence deed with him obviously was void and thereafter in the last para, the prospecting licence was granted in favour of the respondent. whereas Shri Jain (the petitioner), the impleaded party had not done so and, therefore his application has lapsed and the grant order and prospecting licence deed with him obviously was void and thereafter in the last para, the prospecting licence was granted in favour of the respondent. Thus, the entire reading of the above order, dated 23rd February, 1970, clearly goes to show that the case of the petitioner was over-ruled simply on the ground that he had not kept his revision alive and the same has lapsed, while the revision filed by respondent, Shri Pareek, was kept alive. There is not a single word in the order showing that how respondent No. 5 was considered as a more suitable and better person for the grant of prospecting licence on the area in question in comparison to the petitioner. Merely because it has been mentioned that grounds of revision application, comments and counter-comments of the impleaded party and the State Government had been carefully considered, cannot mean that the respective merits of the parties were considered by the Central Government while passing the impugned order dated 23rd February, 1970. 7. We have already held above that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision filed by the petitioner cannot be taken to have been rejected and must revive, which was declared infructuous merely an the ground that sanction had been granted in his favour by the State Government on 26th February, 1969. In this view of the matter, the Central Government ought to have decided the revision filed by the petitioner on merits and should not have ignored the same simply on the ground that the same had not been kept alive. 8. Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the respondent, also submitted that this Court on 22nd April, 1982, had passed an order that the appellant should remove the defects in the paper book within a period of two months, failing which the special appeal shall stand dismissed without making any reference to this Court. In this regard it may be pointed out that an application had been submitted on behalf of the appellant on 21st June, 1982, within two months of the above order for grant of one month's further time to remove the defects in the paper book. In this regard it may be pointed out that an application had been submitted on behalf of the appellant on 21st June, 1982, within two months of the above order for grant of one month's further time to remove the defects in the paper book. A perusal of the record shows that no orders were passed on the aforesaid application and, subsequently by a general order of this Court preparation of pater book in this case along with other old cases had been dispensed with. In view of these circumstances, we find no force in the contention of Mr. Tiwari that as no defects have yet been removed in the paper book, as such, this special appeal should have been taken to have been dismissed in pursuance of the order dated 22nd April, 1982. There is no mistake on the part of the appellant if the application filed by him on 21st June, 1982, for grant of further time to remove the defects in the paper book were not listed in the court for appropriate order. That apart, when the preparation of paper books has been dispensed with, subsequently, we do not find any ground in the objection raised by Mr. Tiwari in this regard. 9. In the result, we allow this special appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. Both the orders granting prospecting licence by the State in favour of the appellant-petitioner on 26th February, 1979 as well as the order dated 23rd February. 1970, granting prospecting licence in favour of respondent No. 5 are quashed. It is, now, directed that the Central Government shall, now, consider the revision filed by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 against the deemed refusal, on merits and will pass appropriate order according to law. 10. The parties are left to bear their own costs. *******