JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 27.11.95 granting quarry licence to the respondent No.5-Radha Swami Trust (Samadh Works), Swami Bagh, Agra (Uttar Pradesh) and for issuance of a mandamus to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for issuing quarry licence in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the quarry licence of Marble in Ulodi Range, Makrana was originally and initially issued in the name of Shri Mahatma Atma Parmanandji on 1.4.65 who excavated the marble from the said quarry upto December, 1978. Since, there was no power of transfer under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 the petitioner obtained power of attorney from Mahatma Atma Parmanandji for excavating the marble from the said quarry. It is alleged that Mahatma Atma Parmanandji died on 15.5.85, but the lease remained in force upto 31.1.87. The petitioner has further alleged that after the death of Mahatma Atma Parmanandji he got the lease renewed from time to time and the last renewal was granted till 31.12.94. It has been specifically stated by the petitioner in the petition that he continued the mining operation till November, 1991 whereas, the same were stopped by the respondents. It has been averred that the petitioner applied to the State Government for relaxation of Rule 65 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. It has been further averred that the application moved by the petitioner for relaxation of Rule 65 of Rules, 1986 was considered by the Mines Department who recommended the relaxation of Rule 65 of the Rules, 1986 and also recommended that the quarry licence may be granted to the Petitioner. It is alleged that since thereafter, petitioner did not receive any communication for a pretty long time, he filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5253/1995 in this Court which was disposed of on 21.12.95 and the State Government was directed by this Court to pass orders on the application of the petitioner within 60 days from the date of submission of the copy of the order. It is alleged that the petitioner after obtaining the certified copy of the order went to handover the same in the office of Secretary, Mines and Geology, but the same was refused thereafter, petitioner sent the said copy of the order by registered post. It is alleged that the petitioner after obtaining the certified copy of the order went to handover the same in the office of Secretary, Mines and Geology, but the same was refused thereafter, petitioner sent the said copy of the order by registered post. It is further alleged that when the petitioner went to handover the certified copy of the order dated 21.12.95 in the office of Mining Engineer, Makrana on 30.12.95, he came to know that Mining Quarry No. 111 was allotted to the respondent No.5 on 27.11.95. Since the respondent No.5 was threatening the petitioner from dispossessing him from the quarry in dispute, he filed a Civil Suit before the Civil Judge, Makrana for injunction. However, the said suit was withdrawn under the legal advise and, thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court in the instant petition. The petition came up for admission and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner notice was issued to the respondents to show cause as to why this petition may not be admitted and in pursuance of that n lice counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. The main plea in the reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 is that the petitioner has played fraud upon the State Government while he continued mining operations from 1985-1991 without informing the Mining Department that the original licencee Shri Mahatma Atma Parmanandji had expired on 15.5.1985 who had granted power of attorney in favour of the petitioner and he was carrying on mining operations on behalf of, Mahatma Atma Parmanandji. No quarry licence as a right was ever granted to the petitioner and since the original licencee i.e. Mahatma Atma Parmanandji having expired in 1985 the power of attorney granted in favour of the petitioner automatically came to an end. The petitioner by concealing the fact of death of original licencee Mahatma Atma Parmanandji continued mining operations till December, 1991 and went on applying for renewal of the lease from time to time. 3. I have heard Mr. S.M. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. R.P. Garg, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and have also perused the material on record. Mr. 3. I have heard Mr. S.M. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. R.P. Garg, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and have also perused the material on record. Mr. Mehta, appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently urged that the respondents have committed a grave illegality and irregularity in granting lease in favour of the respondent No.5 during the pendency of the application filed by him under Rule 65 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. He further urged that the petitioner was entitled for grant of relaxation under Rule 65 of the Rules, 1986 as he-had been carrying on mining operations and without disposing of his application under Rule 65, the respondents could not have been granted lease in favour of the respondent No. 5 i.e. Radha Swami Trust (Samadh Works), Swami Bagh, Agra (Uttar Pradesh). The most glaring fact which emerged from the pleadings of the parties in the instant case is that the petitioner has played fraud upon the State Government while he continued mining operations for 6 years i.e. from 1985 to 1991 deliberately concealing this fact from the Department that original licencee Shri Mahatma Atma Parmanandji had expired in the year 1985. In view of the said fact, I am of the opinion that the petitioner had no right whatsoever to obtain quarry licence in his favour or even to seek relaxation of Rule 65 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also challenged the power of the State Government in granting relaxation of Rule 65 of Rules, 1986. This submission of the petitioner is also wholly misconceived and deserves to be rejected. Since the petitioner himself had applied to the State Government under Rule 65 of the Rules, 1986 for relaxing the provisions of the Rules after coming into force the new marble policy, it is not open to the petitioner to challene the same. Moreover, his application for grant of relaxation was never allowed by the State Government as claimed by the petitioner and in fact, the said application has been rejected after taking opinion from the Advocate General State of Rajasthan. As regards grant of mining lease in favour of the respondent No. 5 is concerned, Mr. K.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. As regards grant of mining lease in favour of the respondent No. 5 is concerned, Mr. K.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that Mahatma Atma Parmanandji was looking after the Anandpur Trust at Makrana. On 29.10.91, the Trust had made an application that the quarry be mutated in the name of Anandpur Trust and the application had been signed by Mahatma Dhyan Nityanand as the authorised signatory of Anandpur Trust. It is also pertinent to mention that before granting quarry rights in favour of the respondent No.5 after relaxing Rule 65 the opinion was also sought from the Advocate General State of Rajasthan. The said opinion was produced before the Court for perusal. The learned Advocate General had opined that considering the objects for which the Trust had been created, the quarry licence could be made in favour of Anandpur Trust by relaxing the rules. It is also pertinent to mention that the State Government while exercising its powers of relaxation has imposed a condition while granting licence to the respondent No.5 that he marble extracted shall be used only for the construction of Radhaswami Samadh Works and will not be sold to any other person. However, there is no manner of doubt that the State Government has valid powers for grant of relaxation under Rule 65 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 and I am also of the opinion that the said power has rightly been exercised by the State Government. Mr. R.P. Garg, counsel for the respondent No.5 urged that the petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of alternative remedy as the petitioner has remedy of filing a revision before the Central Government under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 against the impugned-order. The said contention has not been refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that the petition can be dismissed on the said ground alone, but apart from the availability of alternative remedy, the petitioner has misrably failed to make out a case on merits for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by this court. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material on record, I am of the opinion that the petition is wholly devoid of merit and deserves to be rejected. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material on record, I am of the opinion that the petition is wholly devoid of merit and deserves to be rejected. Moreover, the discretionary power to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a extraordinary jurisdiction and the relief can be granted only in favour of a person who come to the Court with clean hands. The equitable jurisdiction cannot be exercised in favour of a person who is guilty of concealment of facts. In fact, in the instant case, the petitioner with the connivance of the officers of the Mining Department of the State of Rajasthan has been carrying on mining operations without any valid licence for 6 years when ultimately the possession was taken over by the Authorities in 1991. 5. In the result, petition fails and is accordingly rejected. However, parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition dismissed. *******