Order.- Complaint has been laid against the petitioner by the State of Andhra Pradesh that the petitioner as the mining lease-holder in Emboyee Reserve Forest in Dhone taluk and as the owner of the lorry A.P.T. No. 3962 was found transporting on 16th April, 1959, iron ore from the mine to Veldurthi and as he and his driver Sekanna cited as P.W. 3 were not in possession of delivery permit or permit issued by the Forest Department authorising the transport of iron ore they have committed offences under section 4(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Develop-ment) Act (LXVII of 1957) punishable under section 21 of the same Act. Thiscom-plaint had ben filed on 2nd August, 1959. The leases which the petitioner possessed were of the dates 7th December, 1955 and 19th August, 1955. The petitioner has thereupon filed this application for quashing the proceedings alleging that the provisions of Act LXVII of 1957 are inapplicable inasmuch as the leases were granted before the 28th of December, 1957, on which date this Act came into force and that therefore they are saved by the Proviso to sub-section (1) of section 4 of this Act. The petitioner also alleged that no terms or conditions of the lease have been violated and no rules have been contravened as none of them have required the petitioner to obtain any local delivery permits or other permits from the Forest Department for the purpose of transporting the iron ore. It is next maintained by the petitioner that even if it be found that the transport by the petitioner as the lorry owner is with out any delivery permit or so, there could be no prosecution under this Act. For these reasons, the petitioner submits that the prosecution is unsustainable and the charge is liable to be quashed. It is next maintained by the petitioner that even if it be found that the transport by the petitioner as the lorry owner is with out any delivery permit or so, there could be no prosecution under this Act. For these reasons, the petitioner submits that the prosecution is unsustainable and the charge is liable to be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute that the licences were obtained prior to the coming into force of Act LXVII of 1957 but contends that the provisions of section 4 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act LIII of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘old Act’) which was in force when the licences were granted to the petitioner on 7th December, 1955 and 19th August, 1956, are in pari materia with those of section 4 of Act LXVII of 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘new Act’), section 4 of the new Act should be taken to have the same or similar effect as section 4 of the old Act and therefore this is a matter which can be looked into or rectified at the stage of framing the charges. To find out whether the provisions of section 4 in each of these Acts is analogous to the other, it is necessary to read them together as hereunder: Section 4 of the old Act: “4. (1) No mining lease shall be granted after the commencement of this Act otherwise than in accordance with the rules made under this Act. (2) Any mining lease granted contrary to the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be void and of no effect.” Section 4 of the new Act: “4. (1) No mining lease shall be granted after the commencement of this Act otherwise than in accordance with the rules made under this Act. (2) Any mining lease granted contrary to the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be void and of no effect.” Section 4 of the new Act: “4. (1) No person shall undertake any prospecting or mining operations in any urea, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, a mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made thereunder: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect any prospecting or mining operations undertaken in any area in accordance with the terms and conditions of a prospecting licence or mining lease granted before the commencement of this Act which is in force at such commencement.” It is clear that section 4 of the old Act invalidates any mining lease which is not in accordance with the rules made under that Act, while section 4 of the new Act enjoins upon every person who undertakes any prospecting or mining operations to be armed with a licence or a lease. Further, the Proviso to sub-section (1) of section 4 of the new Act specifically saves “prospecting or mining operations undertaken. . . before the commencement of this Act” inasmuch as the obligations of the licensee or lessee under the old Act are confined only to the observance of the terms or conditions of a prospecting licence or a mining lease and not therefore to be subject to the rules made under the new Act apart from the conditions and terms contained in the contract. In other words while the old Act provided penalties only as stipulated in the contract, any contravention by the licensee or lessee after the new Act came into force is made punishable as provided under section 21 of that Act. This position in regard to the variation in the risk which a licensee or a lessee is subject to, depending upon the statute which governed at the time a person became a licensee or a lessee is, in my view, brought out by the addition of the words “and the rules made thereunder” at the end of sub-section (1) of section 4 which were in this section as found in the old Act. What is found in subsection (2) of section 4 of the old Act is the following: “Any mining lease granted contrary to the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be void and of no effect.” Thus, the lease which was not in accordance with the rules made under the old Act took no effect and became inoperative as it was void. But sub-section (1) of section 4 of the new Act made the rules made under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act of 1957 applicable to the leases or licenses and by the operation of section 21 of this Act, the contravention of any terms and conditions of the license or the violation of the rules has been made punishable in an equal degree. It is because that there was no provision in the old Act for the punishment of the violation of the terms and conditions of a licence or a lease, that the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 4 had necessarily to save those licences from the operation of the penal provision contained in section 21 of the Act. This distinction which seems to me to have been real is also kept in view by the framers of the statute as could be seen by a reference to section 9 of the old Act which so far as it is relevant reads as follows: “9. (1) Any rule made under any of the provisions of this Act may provide that any contravention thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.” Thus, the penalty for contravention of a rule is to be provided in the Rules, themselves; and this penal provision when it was in force did not therefore seek to provide for prosecutions for violation of the terms or conditions in the contract. It appears to me that because of this distinction that is persisted in the matter of the violation of the terms and conditions in a licence or a lease and the contravention of the rules as they subsisted before the passing of the new Act, that the lease deeds executed on the 7th December, 1955 and on the 19th of August, 1956, could not also provide for any prosecution; for, the reason that apart from the illegality of such terms or conditions the impossibility of introducing such stipulations must have been apparent. Thus, it could be seen that in respect of licences or leases for mining operations which came into existence under the old Act, viz., Act LIII of 1948, prosecutions for non-observance of conditions or terms is not only illegal but impossible and for the same reason it is difficult to predicate that the provisions of section 4 in both the Acts are analogous or could be said to have the same effect or to carry the same consequences, having regard especially to section 9 of the old Act and section 21 of the new Act. It is also necessary to advert to a few clauses of the contract as they subsist between the parties. The mining lease, dated the 7th of December, 1955, grants in Part I to a licensee “liberty and power to enter upon the lands referred to in Part I (hereinafter referred to as the said lands) and to search for, win, work, get, raise (convert) and carry away the said minerals” The model form for a mining lease found at page 39 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, which are said to be operative even after Act LXVII of 1957 came into force -as no fresh rules have yet been framed-provides for carrying away the beneficiated ore. It is only in Part III of the model form we find that the lessee “shall not enter upon” any reserved forest included in the said lands (lands leased) without previous sanction in writing of the District Forest Officer, nor fell, cut, and use any timber or trees without obtaining the sanction in writing of that Officer nor otherwise than in accordance with such conditions as the State Government may prescribe. It becomes thus necessary to pinpoint to a certain aspect in regard to the use of the forest by the lessee which is that a lessee has to take permission before entering upon the reserved forest and not that he should obtain any permission as often as he carries away the beneficiated ore. It is, therefore, in my view difficult to uphold the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the permission of the District Forest Officer should be sought every time the ore is transported from the forest area. Also having regard to a communication received by the petitioner from the District Forest Officer, dated 31st December, 1955, it is rather difficult for any one to infer that the petitioner did not enter upon the forest without the necessary permit, say, at least on the date 16th April, 1959, on which it was alleged his lorry was carrying the ore. That communication may be set out hereunder for a full appreciation of the actual facts in this case. “The Range Officer, Kurnool, has reported that the mine-owner, Sri T.V. Sivaiah has removed 3 lorry-loads of iron ore from the plot granted to him in Emboy R.F. without obtaining the permission from the District Forest Officer to enter the site. When the matter was brought to the notice of the District Collector and the Range Officer, the mine-owner approached the District Forest Officer with an application for permission to work the plot and represented orally before the District Forest Officer that he was ignorant of the rules, that he was new to the business and that he may be excused this time. Subject to any action that may be taken by the District Collector for having entered the plot without the written permission of the District Forest Officer previously, I permit Sri T.V. Sivaiah to enter the plot and to begin the work. Subject to any action that may be taken by the District Collector for having entered the plot without the written permission of the District Forest Officer previously, I permit Sri T.V. Sivaiah to enter the plot and to begin the work. He is directed to abide in future by the clauses in the agreement form and the circular issued from the District Forest Office.” From this, it is more than clear that the Forest Officer has permitted the petitioner (T.V. Sivaiah) to enter the plot and begin the work, at least as from the date of this communication, dated 31st December, 1955 and what he has directed the petitioner is to ‘abide in future’ by the clauses in the agreement form and the circular issued from the District Forest Office. However, the circular has not been placed before this Court and it is therefore not possible to say that the circular contains such conditions as to make the provisions of the present Act in toto applicable to this case. As respects the transport of iron ore without delivery permit which is alleged to be the cause of complaint or the basis of the prosecution for the complaint, the learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to show that any rule in force requires the “delivery permit” to be obtained by the petitioner under the Mineral Rules framed under Act LXVII of 1957. Though time has been taken to obtain the information concerning this and therefore this matter stood adjourned on several occasions, nothing had been brought to light. It is, therefore, to be taken that far from the conditions and terms of the lease requiring possession of any such delivery permit by a lessee to carry iron ore, there are no other orders in force which requires such compliance by the petitioner. The above clearly indicates that while prosecutions are not contemplated either by the terms and conditions of the lease, it cannot also be said that prima facie there has been transgression of section 4 of the old Act or sub-section (1) of section 4 of the new Act; much less on the allegations mentioned in the complaint viz., for not obtaining the delivery permit or a permit from the Forest department, can be petitioner be prosecuted, as such course is not contemplated by any law or rule binding on the petitioner. These reasons, therefore, impel me to quash the proceedings concerning the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner and it is therefore ordered accordingly. A.S.R. ----- Petition allowed; Proceedings quashed.