JUDGMENT 1. - Under the powers vested in the Central Government under Section 13 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short, the Act), the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short, the Rules of 1960) were framed by the Central Government. The said Rules, it is not disputed, only cover the grant or renewal etc. of mining leases for major minerals. The Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules. 1986 (for short, the Rules of 1986) were framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 15 of the Act and so far as Rules of 1986 are concerned, provision has been made for grant of mining lease and their renewals. Under sub-rule (6) of rule 4 of the Rules of 1986 no mining lease shall be granted or renewed in the forest area without clearance from the Central Government in accordance with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Rules made thereunder. 2. There is no dispute that in the present case the petitioner applied for grant of mining lease in respect of area comprising of 207.205 hactares in accordance with rule 22 of the Rules of 1960 near village Raisala, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh District-Jaipur. The petitioner was granted mining lease by the State Government for silica sand and soap-stone vide order dated October 12, 1976. The petitioner had obtained a No Objection Certificate No. 324 dated January 9, 1975 from the Forest Department. The mining lease No. 19/75 was executed by the petitioner and the State Government on February 5, 1977 and it was got registered on March 5, 1977 in the Tehsil Jamwaramgarh. The said lease was granted to the petitioner for a period of 20 years with effect from the date of its registration i.e. March 5, 1977 and therefore it was to expire on March 4, 1997. 3. When the petitioner was doing mining operations, it was found that there was possibility of excavating Iron Ore and therefore the petitioner reported to the State Government the discovery in the leased area of the mineral. The said mineral i.e., iron ore was also included in the mining lease of the petitioner under Order dated March 15, 1980 and rider agreement was executed and the petitioner thereafter started winning iron ore also. 4. The said mineral i.e., iron ore was also included in the mining lease of the petitioner under Order dated March 15, 1980 and rider agreement was executed and the petitioner thereafter started winning iron ore also. 4. When the petitioner was undertaking the mining operations in this area, it was found that marble can be won out from the pits made for the purpose of excavating soap stone. It may be stated that during the working of mines the petitioner came to know that dolomite and silica sand were not in such quantity or state so as to do winning or disposing the same economically and practically and therefore the petitioner surrendered the minerals viz. Dolomite and Silica sand from the lease in accordance with rule 29 of the Rules of 1960. The petitioner applied on February 11, 1986, to the Mining Engineer Jaipur for inclusion of the mineral namely Marbel for the area 100 X 100 sq. meters in the said lease or in the alternative it was prayed that separate lease of 100 X 100 sq. meters for the marble may be granted. The petitioner was informed by the Mining Engineer that he should submit No Objection Certificate from the Forest Department for the purpose of carrying out mining operations on the area of 100 X 100 sq. meters for excavating marble mineral. The petitioner did not comply with that order and taking as implied refusal for grant of mining lease for the area 100 x 100 sq. meters, filed the present writ petition in this Court. 5. Notice was given to the non-petitioners and reply has been filed and basically the reply is that unless the petitioner gives No Objection Certificate from the Forest Department and unless the petitioner files no dues certificates, the mining lease cannot be granted. So far as the question of inclusion of area 100x100 sq. meters is concerned it is the case of the non-petitioners that both sets of Rules operate in different fields and have been framed by different authorities namely State Government and Central Government and the mineral marble cannot be allowed to be included and a fresh lease can he granted. 6. meters is concerned it is the case of the non-petitioners that both sets of Rules operate in different fields and have been framed by different authorities namely State Government and Central Government and the mineral marble cannot be allowed to be included and a fresh lease can he granted. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the mining lease for 20 years having been started by the Central Government under the Rules framed under Section 13 of the Act, any other mineral which is discovered during the working of the mining in the leased out area, the new found mineral cannot be included in the lease-deed of the petitioner because the Rules do not govern the grant of mining lease so far as new mineral is concerned. No doubt under sub-rule (1) (b) of rule 27 of the Rules 1960, if any mineral not specified in the lease is discovered in the leased area the lessee shall not win and dispose of such mineral unless such mineral is included in the lease or a separate lease is obtained therefore, but a separate lease can be obtained under the Rules of 1986. Therefore, the words 'a separate lease is obtained' used in sub-rule, (1) (b) of rule 27 of the Rules of l960 means the obtaining of separate lease under the Rules of 1960 or Rules of 1986, as the case may be. We are of the opinion that as both the Rules of 1960 and the Rules of 1986 cover different fields, apply to major and minor minerals, if the new mineral is found while working a mining lease, being minor mineral, that mineral cannot be included in the lease and the only course open to the lessee will be to apply for separate lease under the Rules of 1986. 7. It has already been stated earlier that though the lease for major mineral was also granted to the petitioner under the Rules of 1960 for the area 201.205 hactare, but so far as marble is concerned, the petitioner only filed in application for inclusion of area 100 x 100 meters for excavating marble for grant of fresh lease for that area and not for entire area aforesaid for which the major lease was granted. So far as the area of 100 x 100 hactare is concerned, the mining operations were undertaken. So far as the area of 100 x 100 hactare is concerned, the mining operations were undertaken. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi and others, AIR 1985 SC 814 , was dealing with Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act (69 of 1980) and said that the said Section will only apply in case there is fresh breaking-up of the forest land or fresh clearing of the forest. In other words, the Supreme Court took a view that after the commencement of the said Act no fresh breaking up of the forest land or no fresh clearing of the forest on any such land can be permitted by any State Government or any authority without the prior approval of the Central Government. The petitioner having already broken and having already done fresh clearing in the area 100 x 100 meters so far as iron ore is concerned, no fresh breaking up or clearing of the area will be necessary and no permission under Section 2 of the said Act will be necessary. We have to harmonise the two sets of Rules and we are of the opinion that in case of lease of major mineral and minor minerals, it is not possible to include the other mineral and the only possible way out is that an application for grant of fresh lease should be filed by the lessee and the area being free for grant of lease having been applied first, his application will be disposed of in accordance with Rules of 1986 or the Rules of 1960, as the case may be. It is not possible to include any minor mineral in the lease for major mineral or vice versa. The reason is that if the lease is granted under the Rules of 1960, a particular royalty and deed-rent is payable and if the lease is granted under the other set of Rules, then the payment of royalty and deed-rent will be governed under the different set of Rules. 8. Consequently, we hereby partly allow this writ petition and direct the non-petitioners to decide the application filed by the petitioner for a fresh grant of lease for marble mineral for the mining area 100 x 100 Sq. meters which area has been cleared. 8. Consequently, we hereby partly allow this writ petition and direct the non-petitioners to decide the application filed by the petitioner for a fresh grant of lease for marble mineral for the mining area 100 x 100 Sq. meters which area has been cleared. The application shall be disposed of in accordance with Rules of 1986 as early as possible, but in no case later than four months. Costs made easy.Petition partly allowed. *******