Judgment G.L. Gupta, J.-This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashment of the orders dated 21-9-93 (Annx. 6) and dated 23-2-1991 (Annx. 3) and Notice dated. 24-11-93 (Anux. 7). A direction has been sought that the petitioner is not liable to pay the dead rent for the period during which the possession of the area remained with the State Govt. i.e. from 28-3-1985 to 27-10-1991. 2. The petitioner’s case is that it was holding mining lease for mining Mica, Feldsar and Quartz near village Thumi Tonk, Tehsil Beawar, Distt. Ajmer for 20 years from 28-9-79 and that a notice dated 1-2-1984 was given to the petitioner by the Respondent No. 3 to produce the record for the period from 28-9-1982 to 27-9-1983 and thereafter the State Govt., due to the non-compliance of the said notice, cancelled the mining lease of the petitioner vide order dated 10-1-1985 with forfeiture of security. The petitioner challenged this order by preferring revision petition before the Central Govt. who granted stay on 24-9-85 but the State Govt. had already taken over the lease area on 5-9-85, Despite the stay order the State Govt. did not restore the possession of the mining area to the petitioner. The Central Govt. decided the revision petition finally vide order dated 3 1-8-88 and directed the State Govt. to restore the mining lease after imposing such lesser penalty as may be considered adequate. The State Govt. did not take action thereafter for long time and it was only on 23-2-9 1 that the State Govt. passed the order restoring the mining lease to the petitioner with the condition that the party shall pay the dead rent for the intervening period for which the area remained with the State Govt. and at the same time State Govt. ordered the forfeiture of 100% amount of the security deposit on account of non-compliance of the notice. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Central Govt. by filing revision petition but the Central Govt. dismissed the same. In this writ petition, the petitioner’s case is that the State Govt. cannot claim dead rent for the period the possession of the area remained with the State Govt. 3. In the reply, it has been averred that the order of the State Govt. by filing revision petition but the Central Govt. dismissed the same. In this writ petition, the petitioner’s case is that the State Govt. cannot claim dead rent for the period the possession of the area remained with the State Govt. 3. In the reply, it has been averred that the order of the State Govt. is perfectly as per rules and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the writ petition. 4. The contention of Mr. Bobra was that when the petitioner was not in possession of the lease area for about six years, it was not liable to pay dead rent. He urged that the Central Govt. has also been of this view which is evident by the order Anux. 8. He relied on the cases of Murlidhar Agrawal v. State of Raj. & Ors. dated 13-5-1965 (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1468/64). Chhoga Ram Mundoliya v. State of Rajasthan (1992) 2 WLN 586 and Radhey Shyam v. State of Rajasthan (1995) 1 WLN 139 in support of his contention thai dead rent was not leviable for the period the land was in possession of the respondent. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Jangid contended that the petitioner had violated Clause 1 (1) of Condition No. 27 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 when it did not furnish information required by the State Govt. and therefore the lease could be determined under Clause (iv) of Condition No. 27. He also referred to the agreement of mining lease in Form-K entered into by the petitioner with particular reference to Para 3 of Part IX to stress that the State Govt. could impose penalty up to twice the amount of annual dead rent specified in Clause (2) Para 5. 6. I have given the matter my thoughtful consideration. It is no more in dispute that the petitioner was dispossessed of the area on 5-9-85. It is not clear on record as to what date the possession of the area was restored to the petitioner. However, it is certain that the petitioner remained out of possession of the area from 5-9-85 for about six years. On the breach of condition mentioned in Clause (i) of Para 1 of Condition No. 27, action can be taken according to Para 4 of Condition No. 27 and lease can be determined and security deposit can be forfeited. However, it is certain that the petitioner remained out of possession of the area from 5-9-85 for about six years. On the breach of condition mentioned in Clause (i) of Para 1 of Condition No. 27, action can be taken according to Para 4 of Condition No. 27 and lease can be determined and security deposit can be forfeited. In the instant case, the order of cancellation of the lease had been set aside by the Central Govt. in revision and it was directed that the lease should be restored and minimum penalty may be imposed. Thus, the order of determination of the lease has been set aside by the Central Govt. and the State Govt. has also complied with that direction. The only penalty that could be imposed for non-furnishing of the record was that security deposit could be forfeited which has been done by the respondent when it passed the order Amix. 3 on 23-2-91. 7. Coming to the contention of Mr. Jangid based on the conditions of the agreement in Form K, it may be stated that in Para 3 of Part IX, penalty of charging dead rent can be imposed when there are repeated breaches of covenants and lease agreements. It is nowhere the case of the respondents that the petitioner had earlier also committed breach of the covenants and the agreements. Para 3 is clear in terms. A penalty can be imposed only when more than one occasion breaches of the covenant and the agreement are committed. In that case, penalty even up to twice the dead rent could be imposed. In the instant case, it is not the case for the respondents that the petitioner had committed repeated breaches. As such no order imposing penalty under this part could be passed. 8. No other provision was pointed out during arguments under which the dead rent could be claimed by the respondents. It is relevant to state that even in the order Amix. 3 the State Govt. has not charged dead rent as the penalty for late furnishing of the record. Penalty of 100% forfeiture of security deposit has been imposed for default in furnishing record after 75 days. The order of charging dead rent for the interim period is a separate order; different from the penalty. Mr. Jangid has not been able to justify the passing of this part of the order. 9. Penalty of 100% forfeiture of security deposit has been imposed for default in furnishing record after 75 days. The order of charging dead rent for the interim period is a separate order; different from the penalty. Mr. Jangid has not been able to justify the passing of this part of the order. 9. Besides that, there cannot be any justification for the respondents to charge dead rent for the period the lease area remained in the possession of the State Govt. Dead rent is the minimum annual payment which is required to be made by the lessee even if there is no mining work in particular area. Royalty is the rent which the lessor of a mine charges from a lessee for the product taken out from the mine. It varied with the quantity of the minerals. When there is no mining work by the petitioner in the mining area and it was not in the possession of the petitioner there could not be any justification for charging dead rent from the petitioner. This Court has taken this view in the cases of Chhoga Ram (1992 (2) WLN 586) and Radhey Shyam (Supra). Even the Central Govt. in its order dated 14-4-84 in Case No. 32 1/84 Chemical Limes v. State of Rajasthan, held that the State Govt. was not entitled to claim dead rent for the period the possession of the lease area remained with the Govt. 10. That being the legal position, the writ petition is allowed. The order Amix. 3 dated 23-2-1991 and order Amix. 6 dated 21-9-93 so far as they relate to the charging of the dead rent for the period the area remained in the possession of the Government, are quashed.