JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner's case is that the State Government had allotted land measuring 30 acres of Khasra No. 218, 219 and 220 in Gudhi Rin Sait Area situate in Tehsil Pokaran to Champalal Somani on 5.1.1971 for 10 years on lease basis under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Saline Areas Allotment) Rules, 1970 and he held the power of attorney of Shri Somani. The lease was renewed on 21.1.1982 vide Annx. 9 for another to years. After some time Champalal Somani, original allottee, decided to transfer the land allotted to him to the petitioner in lieu of consideration for Rs. 10,000/- and hence he requested the respondents to transfer the lease in his name. It is stated that the petitioner him self was in possession of the lease land since 30.3.73 and was manufacturing sail. On the request of the transfer the respondents desired that the consent of the original allottee be sent and therefore the petitioner sent the consent obtained from Shri Somani yet the respondents did not transfer the lease in his name. On the contrary the respondents, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, terminated the lease vide Annx. 1 dated 2.5.1991. It is averred that at no point of time the respondents refused the petitioner's request to transfer the lease in favour of the petitioner and as he remained under the belief that lease would be transferred in his name, so he spent about one lakh Rupees in the development of the area. It is prayed that the order Annx. 1 and the consequential order Annex. 2 be quashed and, the respondents be directed to renew the lease in favour of the petitioner. 2. In the return, it was admitted that lease was granted in favour of Champalal in 1971 and that it was renewed vide Annex. 9 on 21.1.1982 for 10 years. It is averred that the respondents wrote letters to the original allottee for the renewal of his lease deed in 1982 but he did not respond and there was no occasion to give notice to the petitioner as he was not the allottee. 9 on 21.1.1982 for 10 years. It is averred that the respondents wrote letters to the original allottee for the renewal of his lease deed in 1982 but he did not respond and there was no occasion to give notice to the petitioner as he was not the allottee. It is further averred that Champalal, the original allottee, informed the respondents vide letter dated 26.7.1983 Ex.R-2 that he had cancelled the power of attorney made in favour of the petitioner, it is further the case of the respondents that any transaction entered into between the original allottee and the petitioner was not binding on the respondents as the sale was not made with the prior permission of the respondents. Regarding the letters written to the petitioner about submitting the consent of the original allottee, it is stated that 6uch letters were written contrary to the rules and therefore the letters are null and void and are to be Ignored. 3. In the rejoinder the facts of the writ petition have been reiterated and it is stated that the petitioner had filed power of attorney for the renewal of the lease in 1981 but the respondents insisted that it should be signed by original allottee, though at that point of time the petitioner had valid subsisting power of attorney. 4. The contention of Mr. Singhvi was that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order Annx. 1 and therefore on this ground alone the order deserves to be quashed. His further contention was that the prior permission of the respondents for transferring the lease in favour of the petitioner was not required as violation of clause (vii) of Rule 12(1) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Saline Areas Allotment) Rules, 1970 is without consequence as it is not the ground on which the lease can be determined under clause (xi) of the same Rule. 5. Learned Dy. Government Advocate, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner was not the allottee and he acted as power of attorney holder only up to 1983 when Shri Somani cancelled his power of attorney vide Annex. R-2 and therefore, he is not entitled to maintain this petition. 5. Learned Dy. Government Advocate, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner was not the allottee and he acted as power of attorney holder only up to 1983 when Shri Somani cancelled his power of attorney vide Annex. R-2 and therefore, he is not entitled to maintain this petition. He further contended that it is not the right of any person to get the transfer of the lease registered from the respondents and as the lease was not transferred in his favour he has no locus standi to file this petition. He also pointed out that the lease period had expired in January, 1991 and no cause of action survived even to the original allottee and as such the writ petition filed on 22.6.1991 is misconceived. 6. It is admitted fact that the petitioner was not allottee of the lease. Whatever amount he spent on the development of the area, he did it as attorney holder of Champalal Somani. Even Shri Somani had informed the petitioner vide letter Annex. 5 dated 12.5.1982 that he was not interested in the renewal of the lease. It is significant to point out that Shri Somani did not put his signatures on the lease deed even on writing letters by the respondents, therefore, legally there was no renewal of the lease after the expiry of the original period of 10 years. Be that as it may, the respondents allowed the allottee to work on the land even after the expiry of that period so by implication they had renewed the lease for another ten years, (sic) The January, 1991. It is not the case of the petitioner that the original allottee had moved for the renewal of the lease for another period of ten years as provided Rule 12 of the Rules of 1970 at least three months prior to the date of expiry of the renewed lease. That being so, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground that no cause of action survived even to the original allottee after January, 1991. 7. The petitioner was not the allottee and therefore the respondents are justified in saying that he was not entitled to any notice before the termination of the lease. That being so, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground that no cause of action survived even to the original allottee after January, 1991. 7. The petitioner was not the allottee and therefore the respondents are justified in saying that he was not entitled to any notice before the termination of the lease. After the cancellation of the power of attorney by the original allottee in 1983 no right whatsoever remained in the petitioner and therefore no opportunity of hearing was required to be given to him. 8. The petitioner's contention that the lease ought to have been transferred in his name cannot be accepted. The Rules do not confer any right in the transferee. Rather 1 clause (vii) of Rule 12( 1) of the Rules of 1970 says that lessee shall not sell any portion of the area without prior permission in writing of the Government. The word 'shall' used in clause (vii) reflects the intention of the legislature that there is prohibition of the transfer of lease by the lessee without prior permission of the State Government. It may be that clause (vii) has not been incorporated in clause (xi) of Rule 12 on which the Director may determine the lease but that does not mean that no action can be taken by the Government, where prior permission was not obtained from the Govt. It is to be noticed that in clause (xi) only the powers of the Director have been stated. The Government can ; always refuse permission to the transfer of : the lease. It is not of any significance that though the petitioner had submitted the , consent letter of the original allottee, yet the respondents did not transfer the lease in favour of the petitioner. The obvious reason that it was not the right of the petitioner to get .the lease transferred in his name under the Rules. 9. The writ petition being without any substance is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2000/-.Petition dismissed. *******