JUDGMENT 1. - The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 27.7.1994 passed by the State -Government in an appeal preferred under Rule 43 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 by Abdul Rehman, respondent No. 4. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a sanction order was issued in respect of the Sand-Stone Mine in village Budhpura, Tehsil and District Bundi, in favour of Gafoor, respondent No. 5 on L8.1990 for an area measuring 150x80 S Mts. The sanction orders were issued in his 'favour on 29.1.1982. Since respondent No. 5 failed to execute the lease deed within the stipulated period of three months in accordance with Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977, the sanction stood revoked. 3. The-petitioner thereafter moved an application on 29.7.1983 for the said order for grant-of mining lease. The sanction was granted on 31.3.1984 and the lease deed was also executed on 17.4.1986 for a period of ten years. 4. In the meantime, respondent No. 4 moved an application to the Mining Engineer on 25.6.1984. This was rejected on 25.8.1984 on the ground that the area is not free for grant. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.8.1984, respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal and alleged that the lease granted in favour of the petitioner was illegal since his application was pre-mature as the order for cancellation of the sanction in favour of respondent No. 5 was passed on 25.1.1984 and, therefore, the area was available only thereafter. The area was declared free on 10.2.1984 and the applications were also invited and on that basis it was alleged that the application of respondent No. 4 was in time while that of the petitioner was pre-mature. The appeal preferred by respondent No. 4 was dismissed on 29.3.1986 considering the provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1977. Rule 19 of the Rules of 1977 reads as under :"Execution of lease : (1) Where a lease has been granted or renewed under these rules, the formal lease in Form No. 8 shall be executed within three months from the date of receipt of the sanction by the applicant and if no such formal lease is executed within the aforesaid period, the order granting the lease shall be deemed to have been revoked. The competent authority salt sign the agreement on behalf of the Governor of Rajasthan as required under Article 299 of the Constitution of India : Provided that where the State Government or any officer authorised by the State Government to grant lease on its behalf is satisfied that there are sufficient reasons to believe that the grantee is not responsible for the delay in the execution of the formal lease, the State Government or that officer as the case may be, may permit the execution of formal lease within a reasonable time after the expiry of the aforesaid period of three months. (2) When a mining lease is granted by the State Government or by the competent authority, arrangements shall be made at the expense of the lease for the survey and demarcation of the area granted under the lease." 6. In the second appeal preferred under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1986, the State Government found that on 29.7.1983 when the application was moved by the petitioner, the area was not vacant and, therefore, the sanction could not have been given. The area was declared vacant on 10.2.1984 and, therefore, the application submitted by the petitioner was considered pre-mature and directions were given to grant the lease to respondent No. 4. 7. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the date when the application for grant of mining lease was moved by the petitioner i.e. 29.7.1983, new Rules of 1986 were not in force and earlier the provision was that declaration was necessary to be issued for declaring a particular area of the mining lease as vacant as it was held under a mining lease. According to the new Rules, even if the sanction is being given still it was made imperative to give such a declaration. It is stated that the provisions of new Rules cannot be invoked retrospectively and that there was no necessity for any declaration for declaring the area as vacant and available for grant/sanction of mining lease. 8. According to the new Rules, even if the sanction is being given still it was made imperative to give such a declaration. It is stated that the provisions of new Rules cannot be invoked retrospectively and that there was no necessity for any declaration for declaring the area as vacant and available for grant/sanction of mining lease. 8. Shri Sharma, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that even in accordance with the old Rules, the person in whose favour the mining lease was granted had a right after expiry of three months if the lease deed was not executed explaining the circumstances and praying for extension of time or for execution of the lease deed subsequently and, therefore, it was a practice of the Department to pass a specific order for revocation of the sanction and declare a particular area as open for grant of new lease. 9. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered over the matter. In this matter the Department has itself issued a clarification on 18.6.1986 i.e. as under : `A question has been raised whether applications received from the revoked area be treated as premature with the coming of the new rules. This matter was examined in the directorate. The position is that under MMCR-77 it was not necessary to declare an area as free, after revocation of the sanction. The area was considered as free untill it was held and any one could apply for it. Now under MMCR-86 it is necessary to declare the area free after the revocation. This provision will be effective from 4.3.86 only. Therefore, the area in respect of which sanction have been revoked before 4.3.86 will be automatically considered free whereas in case where the order of revocation has been made on or after 4.3.86, the provision of MMCR-86 will be operative and necessary formalities will be essential. You are therefore, requested to kindly take action accordingly." On the perusal of the old Rules and the clarification which appears to be in consonance therewith, it is clear that it was not obligatory on the part of respondents to have revoked the sanction order passed by specific order. It was only in those cases where the mining lease was executed for which a declaration was necessary under the provisions of Rule 56 of the Rules of 1977. It was only in those cases where the mining lease was executed for which a declaration was necessary under the provisions of Rule 56 of the Rules of 1977. This position of law has been changed under the Rules of 1986. The said Rules cannot be applied retrospectively and, therefore, it was not proper on the part of the State Government to declare the application of petitioner as pre-mature. It has not been brought on record that any representation was moved by respondent No. 5 or any of his rights has been affected or agitated subsequently. If a person has not executed the lease deed within a period of three months, the revocation is automatic and as such if any step was to be taken by such a grantee/person, then he should have taken the immediate steps which in the present case have not been shown to be taken till date. In these circumstances, the application which was moved by the petitioner was in accordance with law and the lease which was granted in his favour cannot be considered to be invalid being based on pre-mature application. 10. The Writ Petition is allowed and the order of State Government dated 27.7.1994 is quashed.Writ Petition Allowed - Order of State Government in favour of Respondent No. 4 quashed. *******