JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order Annex.5 dated 5.5.2010 whereby the Appellate Authority-Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur has rejected the appeal of the petitioner Pappu Devi W/o Khartaram Meghwal against the public notice dated 16.3.2009 (Annex.3) whereby on account of non-compliance of the conditions for restoration of the mining lease of the petitioner, the mining area in question was re-notified for allotment in favour of third party vide public notice dated 16.3.2009. 2. Against the initial order of rejection of mining lease dated 10.11.2003, the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority and the same was allowed vide order dated 13.2.2007 (Annex.l) and mining lease was restored. 2. Against the initial order of rejection of mining lease dated 10.11.2003, the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority and the same was allowed vide order dated 13.2.2007 (Annex.l) and mining lease was restored. The operating portion of the said order dated 13.2.2007 is reproduced below for ready reference: odhy vihykaV dh cgl lquh ,oa [kfu vfHk;ark ls izkIr fjdkMZ dk voyksdu fd;kA [kfu vfHk;ark dh i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd [kku/kkjh ds dkuwuh okfjlku Jherh iIihnsoh us fnukad 30-5-2003 dks ,d i= [kfu vfHk;ark dks fy[k dj ;g fuosnu fd;k Fkk fd eSa lM+d ls 50 QhV dh nwjh NksM+ dj [kuu dk;Z d:axk rFkk lM+d lhek esa tks xM~<+k gS mldks ,d ekg esa Hkj dj vkidks fjiksVZ dj nwaxkA bl i= esa Jherh iIihnsoh us [kku dk ukekarj.k djus dk Hkh fuosnu fd;k FkkA bl izdkj ds ekeyksa esa tgka D;kjh {ks= jksM+ ckm.Mjht ds ikl vkrs gS] ds fuLrkj.k ds fy;s funs'kky; ls tks vkns'k izkIr gq, gS] mlesa ;g Li"V fn'kk&funsZ'k fn;s gq, gS fd [kku vkcaVu djus ij gh [kuu dk;Z djsxkA funs'kky; ds mijksDr fn'kk&funsZ'kksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, iz'uxr D;kjhy vihykaV ds i{k esa fuEu 'krksZa ds lkFk cgky dh tkrh gS % 1- fd vihykaV varfje vof/k dk fdjk;k C;ky o 'kkfLr jkT; ljdkj ds ifji= fnukad 23-8-1990 ds vuqlkj ,d ekg dh vof/k esa tek djk;saxsA 2- fd jksM+ lqj{kk ds laca/k esa funs'kky; ls tkjh vkns'k fnukad 14-5-2006 dnh ikyuk esa vihykaV [kfu vfHk;ark dks bl fcuk; dh ,d v.MjVsfdax nsaxs] fd os jksM+ ds dsUnz fcUnq ls 25 ehVj dh nwjh NksM+dj gh [kuu dk;Z djsaxs rFkk jksM+ o vkcknh dks fdlh Hkh izdkj ls {kfr ugha igqapk;saxsA 3- fd lM+d lhek esa tgka&tgka xM~<+s Mkys x;s mudks ,d ekg esa Hkjk tkos ,oa [kuu dk;Z ds nkSjku foLQksVd lkexzh dke esa ugha ysaxsA 4- fd i;kZoj.k ds fu;eksa dk Hkh os l[rh ls ikyuk djsaxsA [kfu vfHk;ark dks funsZ'k fn;s tkrs gS fd og fu;ekuqlkj Dokjh ykbZlsUl cgky djus ds iwoZ vihykaV ls mDr 'krksZa dh ikyuk lqfuf'pr dj ysaA vkns'k vkt fnukad 13-2-2007 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA 3. Since the petitioner did not comply with the aforesaid conditions for restoration of the mining lease, the said lease was re-notified as vacant for allotment in favour of third party vide Annex.3 public notice dated 16.3.2009. 4. Since the petitioner did not comply with the aforesaid conditions for restoration of the mining lease, the said lease was re-notified as vacant for allotment in favour of third party vide Annex.3 public notice dated 16.3.2009. 4. Against that public notice, the petitioner again filed an appeal before the Additional Director (Mines) vide Annex.4 and the said Appeal No. 142/2009 came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 5.5.2010 (Annex.5) and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court. 4. Against that public notice, the petitioner again filed an appeal before the Additional Director (Mines) vide Annex.4 and the said Appeal No. 142/2009 came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 5.5.2010 (Annex.5) and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court. The operative portion of the order dated 5.5.2010 of the Appellate Authority is quoted below for ready reference: [kfu vfHk;ark] tks/kiqj }kjk mDr vihy ds laca/k esa izsf"kr rF;kRed izfrosnu ,oa in okn fVIi.kh ,oa mlds lkFk izkIr fjdkMZ dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA [kfu vfHk;ark] tks/kiqj ds vuqlkj vihykaV dks jsLiksMsUV dk;kZy; }kjk fnukad 19-7-2003 dks uksfVl tkjh dj lM+d lhek ds e/; fcUnq ls 50 QhV dh lhek esa [kuu dk;Z u djus o foLQksVd lkexzh mi;ksx esa ugha ysus o lM+d lhek esa gq;s xM~<+ksa dks iUnzg fnu esa Hkj dj ikyuk fjiksVZ is'k djus o 'kiFk i= izLrqr djus gsrq fy[kk x;k mlds mijkar ikyuk ugha gksus ds dkj.k vkns'k fnukad 10-11-2003 ls [kku dks izfrHkwfr jkf'k tCr djrs gq, [kkylk ?kksf"kr dj fn;k x;k ftlds fo:) vihykaV us blh U;k;ky; esa vihy la[;k 286@2006 izLrqr dh x;h] ftl ij U;k;ky; us fnukad 13-2-2007 dks fu.kZ; lquk;k] ftlds vuqlkj fu.kZ; esa fn;s x;s 'krksZa ds vk/kkj ij [kku cgky djus ds vkns'k fn;sA vihykaV }kjk mDr fu.kZ; vkns'k dh ikyuk esa le; ij dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh x;h blfy;s [kku dks cgky djus dh dk;Zokgh ugha dh x;hA [kfu vfHk;ark] tks/kiqj us vius inokj mRrj esa ;g Hkh crk;k fd vihykaV ds ifr Jh [kjrkjke dk nsgkar fnuakd 11-11-1997 dks gh gks pqdk Fkk] rks fnukad 13-2-2007 ds ckn dc o dSls jsLiksMsUV ds le{k fdjk;k ysus gsrq fuosnu fd;kA mudks }kjk ;g Hkh voxr djk;k x;k fd fnukad 30-3-2009 dks vkosnu i= vkeaf=r dj vkosnu izkIr dj fy;s x;s gS] ftuds fuLrkj.k dh dk;Zokgh dh tk jgh gSA leLr izdj.k dk v/;;u djus ds i'pkr eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapk gwa fd vihykaV }kjk iz'uxr Dokjh {ks= dks [kkylk fd;s tkus ds jsLiksMsUV dk;kZy; ds vkns'k fnukad 10-11-2003 ds fo:) bl U;k;ky; esa iwoZ esa gh vihy la[;k 286@2006 is'k dh is'k dh tk pqdh Fkh ,oa ml ij fnukad 13-2-2007 dks fu.kZ; fn;k x;kA vihykaV }kjk fu.kZ; vkns'k dh ikyuk esa le; ij dk;Zokgh ugha dh ,oa vihy esa rF;ksa ds foijhr tkudkjh nhA [kfu vfHk;ark] tks/kiqj }kjk tks Hkh dk;Zokgh dh x;h gS og fu;ekuqlkj gSA vihykaV }kjk foKkfIr ds fo:) vihy izLrqr dh gS] tks ;qfDr;qDr ,oa U;k;laxr ugha gksus ls vihy vihykaV [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA vkns'k vkt fnukad 5-5-2010 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. D.L.R. Vyas submitted that the compliance of conditions in the initial appellate order dated 13.2.2007 could not be made because the money in question required to be deposited was not accepted by the respondent-Mining Department and the representation in this regard was made by the petitioner vide Annex.2 dated 24.1.2008 and therefore, without cancelling the mining lease after the first appellate order dated 13.2.2007, the respondents could not re-notify the mining lease once in favour of any third party and therefore, the petitioner had approached the Appellate Authority against the said public notice dated 16.3.2009 which has been dismissed by the impugned Appellate order dated 5.5.2010 (Annex.5) purportedly on the ground that conditions of the previous appellate order dated 13.2.2007 were not satisfied by the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. D.L.R. Vyas, therefore, submitted that without cancelling the lease granted in pursuance of first appellate order, the subsequent appeal filed by the petitioner against the public notice dated 16.3.2009 could not be rejected. 7. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent-Mining Department. In paras 5 and 6 of the said reply the respondents have taken the following stand: "5. That the averments made by the petitioner in this para are not admitted in the manner alleged and hence denied on the ground that the petitioner did not comply the said directions laid down therein the order dated 13.2.2007 vide Annex. 1. The petitioner failed to submit the report and requisite affidavits before the answering respondent No. 3 in pursuance to Annex. 1. It is emphatically denied that the petitioner has submitted a letter dated 24.1.2008 (Annex.2) before the answering respondent No. 3. Under Rule 18(26) of the Rules of 1986 and Regulation 109 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulation, 1961 the minimum distance prescribed for permitting mining operations from the road boundary is 45 mts., so no administrative order can be issued contrary to the said rules by the Director. Hence, the allegations leveled in the para with regard to the administrative order prescribing 25 mts. as the minimum distance to permit mining operations is ill-fonded. 6. That the averments made by the petitioner in this para are not admitted in the manner alleged and hence denied. Hence, the allegations leveled in the para with regard to the administrative order prescribing 25 mts. as the minimum distance to permit mining operations is ill-fonded. 6. That the averments made by the petitioner in this para are not admitted in the manner alleged and hence denied. It will be relevant to mention here that as the petitioner was found carrying out mining operations within the 50 ft. from the centre point of the road, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner on 26.5.2003 by the answering respondent No. 3 under Rule 29(g) of the Rules 1986 asking her in case she failed to stop the said working then by invoking the provisions under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1986 her licence shall be cancelled. The petitioner did not honour the said notice then a reminder dated 7.6.2003 was issued by the respondent No. 3 to the petitioner. Still the petitioner did not comply the aforesaid, hence her security was forfeited and the quarry licence in question was cancelled. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the answering respondent No. 2, who while deciding the appeal on 13.2.2007 vide Annex. 1 asked the respondent No. 3 restore the quarry licence of the petitioner on the terms and conditions laid down therein the order. The petitioner did not thereafter comply the said directions, hence, the quarry licence deemed to be cancelled as has been done previously by the answering respondent No. 3. So, the quarry in question remained vacant for re-allotment. When the quarry remained vacant for re-allotment, a notification vide Annex.3 dated 16.3.2009 was published in the newspaper by invoking the provisions of Rule 27(c) of the Rules of 1986 before the answering respondent No. 2, who dismissed vide order dated 5.5.2010 (impugned order)." 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record of the case and pleadings of the parties. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. D.L.R. Vyas that the conditions of previous appellate order could not be satisfied as the money was not accepted by the respondent-Mining Department and mining lease was never cancelled, is misconceived. The conditions in the order dated 13.2.2007 inter alia, in the first appellate order itself, envisaged that the mining in question will be done 50 ft. D.L.R. Vyas that the conditions of previous appellate order could not be satisfied as the money was not accepted by the respondent-Mining Department and mining lease was never cancelled, is misconceived. The conditions in the order dated 13.2.2007 inter alia, in the first appellate order itself, envisaged that the mining in question will be done 50 ft. away from the center of the road which was passing near the mining lease area as also the holes made on account of previous mining will be filed up and the compliance report of the same will be furnished within one month and the petitioner will not use any explosives for the said mining work. The representation of the petitioner Annex.2 dated 24.1.2008 does not talk anything about the fulfillment of these conditions by the petitioner, but only makes a stipulation about the non-acceptance of deposit of dead rent by the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner did not satisfy the other conditions as stipulated in the previous appellate order dated 13.2.2007. Subsequent appeal against the public notice though prima facie even was not maintainable, was entertained and decided on merits against the petitioner by the Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur and reiterating the non-compliance of illegality doing the mining work within 50 ft. from the center of the road and not filing up of the holes as directed in the previous order, the appellate authority rejected the said appeal. The same stand has been taken by the respondents in their reply quoted above. 10. Obviously on these rival contentions and pleadings, the case involves several disputed questions of facts which cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in writ jurisdiction. Prima facie, the Court is satisfied that on account of the non-compliance with the conditions stipulated in Annex. 1 appellate order dated 13.2.2007, the subsequent appeal of the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the impugned order Annex. 5 dated 5.5.2010. The present writ petition has no force and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to all the concerned parties forthwith.Petition dismissed. *******