JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner had submitted an application dated 26.2.93 for mining lease of total area of 50,000 sq. meters for mineral marble near village Morwar in Tehsil and District Rajsamand. The petitioner is said to have submitted a plan and description report showing M.L. area for marble. After going through the required formalities and no objection certificate, the State Government vide its order dated 27.10.1993 sanctioned the mining lease for the area applied i.e. 50,000 sq. meters of five plots of 10,000 each i.e. plot No. 1, 7, 8, 9 and 10, copy of which sanction has been attached along with the additional affidavit to the writ petition as part of Annexure-5. The lease was granted by Deputy Secretary (Admn.). Demarcation of the area had also been made by the office of the Mining Engineer on 28.10.1993 and the registered lease-deed was also executed on 29.10.1993. It is stated that the petitioner had also paid the dead-rent/ royalty. In the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner it is stated that the mining operation was immediately started and up to 31.7.1997 there were total production of 83,084 matric tones and from 1994 to July 1997 the petitioner had also paid the royalty to the tune of Rs. 81,48,011/- and sales tax amounting to Rs. 20,36,056.62. It was further stated that the petitioner had also invested an amount of Rs. 4,65,91,000/- up to 31.7.1997 in the mining equipments, staff and labourers quarters and other facilities as per details attached as Schedule A to the additional affidavit and has given employment to the staff of 67 persons and 150 labourers. A further development has also come into effect that a fresh agreement has been entered into on 14.8.1997 between the petitioner and the State Government where the lease already granted for 10 years has been extended by another 10 years i.e. vide a subsequent agreement entered on 14.8.97. The lease is valid now up to 30.6.2014 as per Annexure-11 attached to the writ petition. The petitioner submits that the reasons as enumerated in Annexure-9 dated 7.11.1994 for cancellation of the lease of the petitioner has no bearing on the facts of the case. 2. The lease is valid now up to 30.6.2014 as per Annexure-11 attached to the writ petition. The petitioner submits that the reasons as enumerated in Annexure-9 dated 7.11.1994 for cancellation of the lease of the petitioner has no bearing on the facts of the case. 2. After grant of the lease and when the lease was also put into operation, on suo moto action, the same Deputy Secretary (Admn.) who had earlier granted the lease had taken a suo motu notice for cancellation of the lease on the ground that the lease was in violation of Rule 11(2) of the Rules. 3. Rule 11(2) of the Rules reads that no person shall acquire in respect of any mineral or prescribed group of associated minerals as prescribed in Schedule III one or more mining lease covering total area of more than 10 sq. kms., provided that the maximum number of mining leases to be granted for a particular mineral or for a mineral of associated group under this rule to a person within direct jurisdiction of any Mining or Assistant Mining Engineer shall be restricted to two and the total number of leases in the entire State would not exceed three. Rule 11(2) is reproduced as under: "No person shall acquire in respect of any mineral or prescribed group of associated minerals as prescribed in Schedule III one or more mining leases covering total area of more than 10 sq. kms. Provided that the maximum number of mining leases to be granted for a particular mineral or for a mineral of associated group under this rule to a person within direct jurisdiction of any Mining or Assistant Mining Engineer shall be restricted to two and the total number of leases in the entire State would not exceed three: Provided further that if the Government is of the opinion that in the interest of mineral development it is necessary to do so, it may for reasons to be recorded permit grant of mining lease exceeding two or three in number as the case may be and/ or covering an area in excess of 10 sq. kms. Provided further that the ceiling limit of 10 sq.kms. prescribed under this sub-rule shall not apply to mineral salt petre." 4. kms. Provided further that the ceiling limit of 10 sq.kms. prescribed under this sub-rule shall not apply to mineral salt petre." 4. Rule does provide that for the reasons to be recorded the mining lease can be granted exceeding two or three in number, as the case may be or in excess of 10 sq. kilometers. It is the case of the petitioner that he had applied for one mining lease of 50,000 sq. meters which was within permissible area and it would not make any difference at all if that area is allotted as one plot or it is sub-divided into five plots for the purpose of convenience. In the present case, 50,000 sq. meters area had been sub-divided into five plots and each plot consists of 10,000 sq. meters. Rule 11(2) prescribes that a person can be allotted one or more mining lease covering total area of not more than 10 sq.kms., with the proviso that the maximum number of mining leases within direct jurisdiction of the Mining or Assistant Mining Engineer shall be restricted to two and the total number of lease in the entire State would not exceed three, however, even this proviso is relaxable vide a further proviso that if the Government is of the opinion that in the interest of mineral development and if it is necessary to do so, it may for the reasons to be recorded permit or grant of mining leases exceeding two or three in number as the case may be and/or covering an area in excess of 10 sq. kms. 5. From the reading of Rule 11(2), it is very clear that what has been limited is the maximum area and the maximum area should be 10 sq. kilo meters relaxable and that too by giving reasons. Under one jurisdiction of Mining Engineer, two leases could be granted and whereas within State three leases can be granted. Area of one lease has not been limited or defined. It is further submitted that in view of the Marble Policy of 1994, the petitioner company was entitled to grant of an area upto 11.25 hectares as the petitioner company had installed 4 Gang saws and the total area granted in favour of the petitioner company is 6 hactares including the area of 10,000 sq. It is further submitted that in view of the Marble Policy of 1994, the petitioner company was entitled to grant of an area upto 11.25 hectares as the petitioner company had installed 4 Gang saws and the total area granted in favour of the petitioner company is 6 hactares including the area of 10,000 sq. meters sanctioned vide another lease deed dated 29.6.1994, details of which have been mentioned above in Civil Writ Petition No. 6286/94. 6. The petitioner has also attached the order dated 25.3.1989 as part of Annexure-5 to the effect that M/s. International Mineral Industries Ltd. and M/s. Mewar Marbles Ltd. had similarly been allotted 10 plots and other industries; M/s. Saxeria Marbles Ltd., M/s. Nirmal Marbles Ltd. and M/s. Aditya Mining Ltd. have been allotted five plots and as such no two different yard-sticks can be used in the case of the petitioner and that of other lease holders. Specific plea has also been taken in this regard to which virtually there is no plausible reply except stating that the facts of other lease holders are distinguishable. The lease granted to above-said other companies consists of more than five plots, so was the case of the petitioner. This plea was also taken by the petitioner in reply as objection (sic ?) in the reply filed to the notice issued by the respondents, but has not been dealt with. Rule 11(2) and also Rule 65 enables the Government even to relax the upper limit of number of plots or area. It has not been mentioned in the impugned order that the area so sanctioned in favour of the petitioner for allotting 50,000 sq. meters in any way exceeds 10 sq. kms. as such the impugned order Annexure-9 is liable to be quashed. 7. Apart from above, the respondent Deputy Secretary who had earlier granted the lease-deed is estopped from invoking the powers suo motu in the present case. The petitioner had applied for 50,000/- sq. meter area after proper verification and obtaining no objection certificate, the sanction was accorded. The petitioner started operating the lease. The dead-rent/ royalty etc. as collected up to July 1997 was also accepted. The sales-tax has also been accepted. The petitioner had spent crores of rupees and has employed the staff. The petitioner had applied for 50,000/- sq. meter area after proper verification and obtaining no objection certificate, the sanction was accorded. The petitioner started operating the lease. The dead-rent/ royalty etc. as collected up to July 1997 was also accepted. The sales-tax has also been accepted. The petitioner had spent crores of rupees and has employed the staff. Rules themselves provide for relaxation of alloting lease plots as well as the area and the respondents having so acted and allowed the petitioner to continue the work and operation of the lease, it is deemed that even if there was any irregularity of such allotment, that irregularity stands relaxed by the proviso of Rule 11(2) and Rule 65 of the Rules. In my opinion, it is the upper limit of the area which should be calculating factor whether it is included in one lease or two leases. No material has been brought on record by the respondents to justify its action. The lease is operating for last six years. 8. Apart from above, the respondent is also estopped from cancelling the lease for the reason that in the year 1997 during the pendency of the writ petition, the lease in question which was initially granted for 10 years i.e. up to 2004 has now been extended up to 2014 as per Annexure-11 attached with the additional affidavit. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, the petition must succeed and the impugned order Annexure-9 can not be sustained in the eyes of law and is quashed.The writ petition is allowed with the above said observations.Petition Allowed. *******