Honble VERMA, J. – The petitioner had applied for grant of the mining lease of Mineral (Sandstone) for the area near in Village Budhpura Tehsil and District Bundi. A mining lease was executed in his favour on 6.8.1976 for an area measuring 6579 Sq. Mtrs. which lease was to expire after 5 years. Another renewal was granted to the petitioner for a period of ten years with the annual dead rent of Rs. 10,950/-. The renewal lease was to expire on 5.8.1991. Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter called the "Rules") authorises the competent authorities to renew the lease, already granted for a period not exceeding 20 years, if the Competent Authority is satisfied that the mining had been done properly in the previous periods and the lessee has invested substantial amount in the machinery and equipment. However, the total period for such renewal is not to exceed to 60 years including the period involved in the original lease. Rule 17 further provides for revising the dead rent after every 5 years. (2). Rule 19 of the Rules provides that if the lease has been renewed, the grantee is supposed to pay demarcation fee, get the area demarcated and deposit the security alongwith one quarterly instalment of annual dead rent and also to submit requisite stamps for execution of the formal lease deed in Form No. 5 within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order of such sanction and on submission of such papers the lease deed is to be executed within 3 months. The CompetentAuthority is to sign the agreement on behalf of the Governor of Rajasthan as required U/Art. 299 of the Constitution of India and the lease is to be registered within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the lease deed from the Mining Engineer etc. etc. (3). It is alleged that the petitioner had applied for renewal of mining lease for the second time to the respondent No. 3. Renewal was sanctioned on 3.2.1996. It is stated that the petitioner had completed all the formalities as required u / r. 19 for execution of the lease deed within the period of 45 days. On 1.2.1992, the petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,700/- for past dues which is said to have been deposited by the petitioner. Renewal was sanctioned on 3.2.1996. It is stated that the petitioner had completed all the formalities as required u / r. 19 for execution of the lease deed within the period of 45 days. On 1.2.1992, the petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,700/- for past dues which is said to have been deposited by the petitioner. Despite the fact that all the formalities said to have been done before 17.3.1992 the lease deed was not executed nor any date was fixed for execution of the lease deed. it is stated that there was no negligence or omission on the part of the petitioner. Despite number of visits made by the petitioner after 3.2.1992, execution was not completed on one pretext or the other. It is stated because of the transfer of the Engineer and lateron of the concerned Clerk Chandra Mohan Sharma, working in the Department, could not be continued and may be for the said reason of transfer of certain officials, the formalities which were to be completed by the Department, had not been completed. The petitioner represented on 19.11.1992 vide Annex. 1. (4). On receipt of the representation, the respondent No. 3 had issued letter Annex. 2 dt. 16.11.1992 wherein the petitioner was asked to deposit the penalty of 9% per month for not making compliance within 45 days as required u/r. 19 and he was further asked to submit National Saving Certificates. It was the case of the petitioner before the Department, that he had completed all the formalities much before 17.3.1992 and he had also deposited the security in the form of NationalSaving Certificate (NSC) which was purchased and submitted to the office of respon- dent No. 3. However, even though National Saving Certificates duly purchased by the petitioner were not pleadged by way of endorsement. On being so informed for pledging of National Saving Certificates, pledging was done on 27.4.1992 itself i.e. on the same day when it was so pointed out. Even though it is a case of the petitioner that no penalty was liable to be imposed but still he was ready to pay the penalty and actually deposited the same on 19.12.1992 of an amount of Rs. 2,795.40/- and he also deposited, copy of which is attached Annex. 4 to the writ petitioner. The petitioner had informed the authority about the compliance of order Annex. 2,795.40/- and he also deposited, copy of which is attached Annex. 4 to the writ petitioner. The petitioner had informed the authority about the compliance of order Annex. 4 vide his letter Annex. 5 dt. 19.12.1991 but had further asked certain clarifications in regard to the amount of demand of Rs. 9520/-. Even though as alle- ged by the petitioner, he had completed all the formalities and also completed all the requirements as being asked by the Department vide Annex. 4, still another order dt. 25.1.1993 was passed, copy of which is attached Annex. 6 to the writ petition to the effect that the compliance of the orders dt. 16.11.1992 (Annex. 4) had not been done by the petitioner to the fact that another amount of Rs. 13,405/- having not been deposited i.e. the previous amount. The sanction already granted was revoked. Even though it was stated by the petitioner that the amount had since been deposited within the specified period. The renewal was not allowed rather the sanction of the renewal already given on 3.2.1992 was revoked. The petitioner aggrieved by the order Annex. 6 filed an appeal before the Competent Authority which was dismissed on 19.4.1993 vide Annex. 7 attached to the writ petition. A further revision was also dismissed on 2.8.1994. The petitioner challenges the impugned orders Annex. 6, 7 & 8. (5). Reply has been filed by the respondents. It is admitted that the sanction of the renewal of the lease was granted on 3.2.1992. However, it is stated that the formalities had not been completed within 45 days i.e. before 17.3.1992 which was the requirement u/ r. 19 of the Rules. It is stated that the petitioner had submitted the security in the form of National Saving Certificate on 27.4.1992 vide Annex. R/ 1. Because of the reason that one of the condition of deposit of the security was not complied within the stipulated period, the respondents alleged that the lease could not have been renewed. It is stated that an amount of Rs. 2795.40/- and Rs. 9,520/- were required to be deposited and also because of the reason that the petitioner did not appear before the respondent No. 3 in his office nor he did get the lease executed despite of the communication dt. It is stated that an amount of Rs. 2795.40/- and Rs. 9,520/- were required to be deposited and also because of the reason that the petitioner did not appear before the respondent No. 3 in his office nor he did get the lease executed despite of the communication dt. 1.11.1992 and also for the reason that the above said amount had not been deposited, it was natural to revoke the sanction lease. It is stated that the petitioner had been given an ample opportunity to get the lease executed but the petitioner had failed to do so. (6). The averments made in the written statement had been denied by the petitioner by filing an replication. The petitioner has attached with the application the photostat copies of the receipt of Rs. 5,700/- deposited on 1.2.1992 and also of Rs. 13,405/- deposited in the Treasury in response to the notice of deposit as issued vide Annex. 10. (7). It is the contention of the petitioner that once the lease had been sanctioned on 3.2.1992 and the National Saving Certificate had been deposited before the expiry period of 45 days and when the petitioners were told in the month of April that National Saving Certificates deposited by them as security should have been borne the endorsement of pledging in favour of the Department, the same was done on the same day itself. It is also stated that as soon as the letter Annnex. 4 was received, the required amount was deposited as is clear from the Treasury Receipt Annex. 11. According to the petitioner the impugned order Annex. 6 passed because of the violation and non compliance of orders Annex. 4 is without basis and without any reasons and without application of mind. (8). Record has been produced by the respondents. From the record, pleadings and arguments, it is revealed as under: (i) the petitioner had been granted lease in the year 1976; (ii) the lease was to expire on 5.8.1991; (iii) an application was made on 29.3.1991 for renewal of the mining lease; (iv) Application fee of Rs. 250/- was deposited as required -u/r. 6 vide Treasury Challan No. 324507 dt. 29.4.1991. (v) Affidavit was filed alongwith the application. (vi) Map of demarcation was attached. It was also submitted that no amount was due to be paid by the petitioner. 250/- was deposited as required -u/r. 6 vide Treasury Challan No. 324507 dt. 29.4.1991. (v) Affidavit was filed alongwith the application. (vi) Map of demarcation was attached. It was also submitted that no amount was due to be paid by the petitioner. On 18.7.1991 Department had issued a certificate that no amount was due from the peti- tioner (This certificate is at page 255 to 258 of the file). (vii) Case was processed and report was submitted by the concerned Officer after inspecting the site. Report was in favour of the petitioner. Sanction was granted at the dead rent of Rs. 15,530/- per year vide order dt. 3.2.1992. (Viii) In the sanction letter, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 40/- as map fee. Rs. 3882.50/- as Ist quarterly instalment, Rs. 3,900/- as security in the shape of National Saving Certificate, Rs. 3530/- for stamps purposes for executing the deed. (ix) It was mentioned that the above said formalities are to be com- pleted within 45 days. (x) There is a letter dt. 17.3.1992 to show that he had completed the following formalities within 45 days: (a) he deposited the security by way of National Saving Certificate amounting to Rs. 4,000/- with National Saving Certificate Nos. 6NS/07 CC/536986-536889; (b) deposited the first instalment of Rs. 3,882/- vide receipt No. 331438 dt. 17.3.1992; (c) deposited Rs. 80/- as demarcation and map fee vide receipt No. 331438 dt. 17.3.1990; (d) it was mentioned by the petitioner that the stamps papers were not available in the market and as soon as they are made available, he will submit the same for execution of the sale deed and had prayed for renewal of the deed (These particulars are evident from the letter at p. 266 of the file alongwith receipts); (e) on 20.3.1992, the petitioner had also deposited the Non-judicial Stamps for execution of the deed. He had also given an undertaking as required by the Department vide his affidavit on 3.2.1992. (9). From the above stated facts which are borne from the file of the office, it is very clear that whatever had been demanded at the time of the sanction, the same was complied with by the petitioner within 45 days. Non-judicial stamps for writing the lease deed were not available and those stamps were provided on 20.3.1992. No further demand was made whatsoever. Non-judicial stamps for writing the lease deed were not available and those stamps were provided on 20.3.1992. No further demand was made whatsoever. In these circumstances, there was no fault on the part of the petitioner for any omission which is said to have been alleged. It is nowhere mentioned in the sanction letter that any endorsement is required to be made on the National Saving Certificate. However, the petitioner was told on 27.4.1992 for getting certain endorsement on the national Saving Certificate for pledging it to the Department which was done by the petitioner, on the same day when it was so told (This is so borne out from the record). (10). The question arises if there was no fault of the petitioner, could the petitioner be blamed for any type of non compliance within the stipulated period and whether 45 days period provided from the date of sanction is mandatory as to take away the right of the petitioner which has vested in him because of the sanction of renewal of mining lease. (11). There is a provision in the rules itself that in case the compliance is not made within 45 days, the Competent Authority may extend the time limit for execution of the lease deed etc. for a further period of three months subject to the payment of penalty of 9% of annual dead rent, meaning-thereby, the rule themselves postulates that provision of 45 days for supplying of the documents etc. is not mandatory to the extent that it should prove fatal to the lease~holder. In the present case, even though the petitioner had completed each and every formality within 45 days except deposit of non-judicial stamps which was done on 48th day, the petitioner was still inflicted a penalty of an amount of Rs. 2,795.40/- vide Annex 2. All the amounts required to be deposited were deposited on 17.3.1992 i.e. within 45 days including the National Saving Certificates but still the Department vide Annex. 2 dt. 16.11.1992 had put the penalty to the extent of 9%. The petitioner even deposited that penalty as well. The petitioner had also represented vide Annex. 2,795.40/- vide Annex 2. All the amounts required to be deposited were deposited on 17.3.1992 i.e. within 45 days including the National Saving Certificates but still the Department vide Annex. 2 dt. 16.11.1992 had put the penalty to the extent of 9%. The petitioner even deposited that penalty as well. The petitioner had also represented vide Annex. 3 to the effect that he was never informed that National Saving Certificates were to be pledged by way of endorsement and as soon as he was so told on 27.4.1992, the same was pledged by way of endorsement on the same day, even though National Saving Certificates were deposited by the petitioner on 17.3.1992 itself. The petitioner had further submitted to communicate to him the amount of penalty so that he may deposit the same, even though it was not due.,He had further made a prayer that because of the reason that non~judicial stamps had already been deposited with the office and approximate 8 months had passed, therefore, the deed be executed without any further delay. The department did not apply its mind to the facts of the case but informed the petitioner vide Annex. 4 to deposit the penalty of an amount of Rs. 2,795/- which letter was received by the petitioner on 19.12.1992. The petitioner deposited the penalty on the same day i.e. on 19.12.1992 vide receipt No. 339352/81. Another amount of Rs. 9,520/- was asked from the petitioner to be deposited because of the reason that after the sanction, the petitioner was continuing to operate in the mining lease i.e. post period of the sanction. The petitioner had replied vide Annex. 5 saying that he had already deposited Rs. 5,700/- on 1.2.1992 and asked the details of the amount of Rs. 9,520/-, which were required to be deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner did dispute the demand and asked for details of particulars. No reply was given by the respondent in response to Annex. 5 but vide letter Annex. 6 dt. 25.1.1993, the lease sanction was rejected and revoked on the ground: (i) that the compliance of letter dt. 16.11.1992 and 11.12.1992 has not been done by the petitioner i.e. the compliance of Annexs. 2 and 4; (ii) that an amount of Rs.13,405/- had not been deposited by the petitioner. Coming to the factual position as revealed from the record, Annex. 25.1.1993, the lease sanction was rejected and revoked on the ground: (i) that the compliance of letter dt. 16.11.1992 and 11.12.1992 has not been done by the petitioner i.e. the compliance of Annexs. 2 and 4; (ii) that an amount of Rs.13,405/- had not been deposited by the petitioner. Coming to the factual position as revealed from the record, Annex. 2 only de- sire the petitioner to pay penalty @ 9% and Annex, 4 amount of penalty was determined to be Rs. 2,795.40/-. As soon as determination of amount was received by the petitioner, he deposited the same on the same day, he received the intimation Annex. 4. Therefore, so far letters Annexs. 2 and 4 are concerned, i.e. 16.11.1992 and 1.12.1992, the petitioner had complied with the requirement. Thus, there was no basis for the respondents to have mentioned anything contrary to the facts in the order dt. 25.1.1993 Annex. 3. (12). So far the other item as mentioned in item No. 6 i.e. the deposit of Rs. 13,405/- is concerned, attention has been invited of such demand made vide Annex.10 dt. 15.10.1992. This letter had been received by the petitioner on 27.12.1992. There is Annex. 10 requiring the petitioner to deposit this amount within 45 days as mentioned in Annex. 10 itself. This amount of Rs. 13,405 /- was deposited by the petitioner vide Annex. 11 on 4.2.1993 within the specified period, meaning-thereby, the petitioner had complied with the demand within the stipulated period from the date of the receipt of the demand vide Annex. 10. The authorities did not apply their mind to this factual position borne out from the record but revoked the sanction vide the impugned order without waiting to the fact that the amount could have been deposited right upto Ist Week of Feb. 1993 Thus, both the basis as mentioned in the impugned order Annex. 6 were not existent and the order was perverse and without application of mind and the order Annex. 6 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. (13). 1993 Thus, both the basis as mentioned in the impugned order Annex. 6 were not existent and the order was perverse and without application of mind and the order Annex. 6 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. (13). Apart from the above submission, it is admitted fact that the said amount of non deposit relates to the post sanction period which could be recovered even otherwise while exercising the powers of R. 66 of the Rules, which provide a special mode of recovery by issuing notice and if the amount is still not paid, the amount can be recoverable as an arrears of land revenue. Because of the reason that this amount related to the period which was subsequent to the sanction, the authorities could have resorted to Rs 66 but in no case could have revoked the sanction itself. (14). So far the recovery of dues at the time of sanction is concerned, rule 4(iv) of the rules is very clear which says that no lease can be granted to a person if the dues of the Department are outstanding i.e. at the time of sanction, the authorities are to determine whether any previous amount is due or not. In the present case it is admitted fact that all the previous amount before the date of expiry and sanction stood deposited by the petitioner and there was no amount due from the petitioner prior to the period of sanction. Therefore, even though the amount of Rs. 13,405/- stood already deposited within the time and there was no occasion for the respondents to cancel the sanction even before expiry of permissible time to deposit the said post sanction amount but even otherwise for failure for deposit of any amount pertaining to the post sanction period, the sanction itself cannot be revoked. (15). Another question which arises for determination of the present case is that in case the petitioner had already complied all the formalities by way of deposit on the 45th day and because of the reason of 2 or 3 days delay in depositing the non-judicial stamps because of non availability of such stamps, could it be said that the petitioner was liable to be punished with penalty. To my mind, the petitioner was not liable to pay any penalty in the circumstances of the present case and even imposing of penalty clause against the petitioner, was not proper and was illegal. Even though the petitioner has paid the penalty to save the adverse action against him but the defence taken by the respondents to the effect that the National Saving Certificates were not endorsed at the time of submission of the National Saving Certificates when there was no such requirement mentioned in the sanction order itself and even though the National Saving Certificates were submitted on 17.3.1992 itself but pledged on later date, cannot invite any penalty against the petitioner. Thus, the action of the respondents in this regard was also not proper. (16). It has been stated at the Bar that ever since 1994, the working on the mine has been stopped by the orders of the authorities. The petitioner had filed a writ petition and obtained a stay order against alloting of the mine to any other person. The stay is still operative. It is admitted fact that ever since the petitioner was not allowed to operate the mine, the mine is lying idle and is not in operation and has not been allotted to any other person but the petitioner has been deprived to work on the mine. For the reason that the petitioner have been illegally deprived to work in the mine on very trifle and non-existing reasons, the Petitioner shall be entitled to the extension of time of the lease deed for which time he has been deprived to work on the mine i.e. his lease shall be extended by the time he was forced to be out of mine. (17). For the discussions and reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed, Annexs. 6,7 and 8 are quashed. The sanction already granted on 3.2.1997 shall continue in favour of the petitioner. The non-judicial stamps have already been deposited which are on the office file, the respondents shall execute the lease deed without any further delay as per the sanction dt. 3.2.1992. The period shall be mentioned as per the law and the rules in the lease deed. However, the petitioner shall also be entitled to the period for which he was illegally kept out of operation of the working of the lease since 1994 till he is actually restored the possession. 3.2.1992. The period shall be mentioned as per the law and the rules in the lease deed. However, the petitioner shall also be entitled to the period for which he was illegally kept out of operation of the working of the lease since 1994 till he is actually restored the possession. (18). It is a case where the petitioner must get the cost as well. The costs are assessed as Rs. 2,000/-.