Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2028 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Hari Singh

2014-12-05

GOVIND MATHUR, PRAKASH GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT : GOVIND MATHUR, J. : ” By an order dated 11-12-1985 a mining lease for excavating minor mineral lime stone was sanctioned in favour of the respondent petitioner as per provisions of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Rules of 1986 ” ). The lease at the first instance was for a period of ten years and was further extended for ten years w.e.f. 1.4.1986. The term of lease came to be expired on 31.3.1996 and on 3.4.2006 possession of the leased area was taken over by the Department of Mining as no application was preferred for further extension of lease term. On 10.8.2006 the respondent petitioner submitted an application for extension of lease term but that came to be rejected vide order dated 26.9.2006 passed by Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur. The Additional Director while rejecting the application stated that after expiry of the lease term on 31.3.2006 possession of the area was taken on 3.4.2006 and the lessee did not submit any application for renewal within the period prescribed under the Rules of 1986. 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.9.2006 the respondent petitioner preferred a revision petition before the State Government but that too came to be rejected vide order dated 24.4.2007. The revisional authority noticed that the application for renewal of the mining lease was submitted on 10.8.2006 i.e. after a lapse of about one year and four months from the date on which application for renewal should have been moved. The revisional authority also could not find any sufficient reason to condone a huge delay in submitting renewal application. 3. To challenge the order passed by the revisional authority and the order passed by the Additional Director (Mines) dated 26-9-2006 the respondent petitioner approached this Court by way of filing a petition for writ that came to be accepted by judgment dated 4.2.2013. Learned Single Bench while accepting the petition for writ observed and held as under: ” ' 14. The period of one year prescribed for applying for renewal in Rule 8(2) does not prescribe for any automatic cancellation of mining lease after expiry of lease period which is 31.3.2006 in the present case. On the other hand, the renewal applications are supposed to be dealt with in terms of Rule 17 quoted above. The period of one year prescribed for applying for renewal in Rule 8(2) does not prescribe for any automatic cancellation of mining lease after expiry of lease period which is 31.3.2006 in the present case. On the other hand, the renewal applications are supposed to be dealt with in terms of Rule 17 quoted above. Deemed renewal upto the date when the authority concerned passes orders on renewal application, if they are filed in time and thereafter upon payment of penalty under Section 17(2) is envisaged in the Rules. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 17 also provides that the competent authority may while granting the renewal of mining lease may even impose the conditions after obtaining prior approval of the Government by a general or specific order. Thus, the mining lease granted for a period of 10 to 20 years is not expected to be brought to a sudden end in the hands of lessee, but a prior and due procedure has been prescribed in the Rules for dealing with such renewal applications. The lessee in the past period of subsisting lease might have made investment in the leased area to develop the same, the full benefit of which was to accrue to him in the subsequent period for which renewal of lease is sought. 15. In the present case however, this Court finds that the renewal application with delay of 4 months has been rejected without assigning any proper and cogent reasons by the authorities below. Unfortunately by these kind of cryptic and loconic orders, the litigation has been stretched for last six years, but mining area itself has remained undeveloped and idle. Neither any development work could be undertaken by the petitioner nor the Department took any action to allot the lease to any other party causing loss of valuable national resources. In the opinion of this Court, it is high time when the quasi judicial authorities passing these kinds of orders are put to terms and are fixed with the personal responsibility, if they chose to ignore the relevant statutes or exercise their quasi judicial discretion in a cryptic and arbitrary manner. This case is glaring example of same. Therefore, this Court is inclined to impose costs of Rs.5,000/- on each of the authorities who passed the two impugned orders in question viz. Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur (Mr. This case is glaring example of same. Therefore, this Court is inclined to impose costs of Rs.5,000/- on each of the authorities who passed the two impugned orders in question viz. Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur (Mr. P. Gehlot, name is not clear in the impugned order and Mr. Niranjan Prasad Sharma, Dy. Secretary (Mines), Jaipur. They shall pay the costs of Rs.5,000/- each in State Treasury within a period of one month from the receipt of this order. The proof of such deposit by them be filed before this Court in the present case. 16. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The Order Annex.2 dtd.26.9.2006 and order dtd.24.4.2006 (Annex.4) are quashed and the respondent ' Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur is directed to pass afresh appropriate orders in accordance with law after the petitioner deposits the amount of penalty for delay of 4 months and 10 days in filing the renewal application which he should deposit within two weeks from today and the Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur shall pass fresh orders within a period of two months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to all the concerned parties forthwith.' 4. In appeal, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is that learned single Bench committed a factual error by treating the delay in filing renewal application for a period of four months, which as a matter of fact was of more than one year and four months. It is stated that Rule 17 of the Rules of 1986 provides a complete mechanism for entertaining applications for renewal of mining lease, but the respondent petitioner did not act in accordance with the Rules and as a matter of fact no reason was prescribed by him for causing delay of more than a period of one year in submitting the application dated 10.8.2006. 5. While meeting with the stand taken, the submission of the appellants is that learned single Bench by relying upon two judgments of this Court exercised its discretion in favour of the respondent petitioner, as such that does not warrant any interference in appellate jurisdiction. 6. 5. While meeting with the stand taken, the submission of the appellants is that learned single Bench by relying upon two judgments of this Court exercised its discretion in favour of the respondent petitioner, as such that does not warrant any interference in appellate jurisdiction. 6. It is asserted that a Single Bench of this Court in Zakir Hussain v. Union of India & Anr., SB Civil Writ Petition No.1627/1983, decided on 21.7.1994, held that in appropriate cases the Government has power to condone the delay caused in applying for renewal of the licence and if special reasons exist, the delay should be condoned. Reliance is also placed upon Single Bench judgment of this Court in Abdul Karim v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2006 WLC (Raj) UC 277. In the case aforesaid the Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur condoned delay in filing review application by imposing penalty i.e. of 20% of the standard rent but that was interfered by the revisional authority. This Court set aside the order passed by the revisional authority by holding that the appellate authority exercised jurisdiction vested with it judiciously by taking into consideration the facts available on record and after arriving at a conclusion that there was sufficient reason to condone delay, in such circumstances the revisional authority should have been slow in interfering with discretionary order. 7. Now coming to merits of this case, it shall be appropriate to refer sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1986. It provides that an application for renewal of mining lease shall be made atleast 12 months before the expiry of the mining lease and shall be disposed of before the expiry of lease and if the application is not disposed of within that period, the lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a further period till final orders are passed on the renewal application by the competent authority. 8. Rule 17 of the Rules of 1986 pertains to renewal of mining lease per in its under sub-rule (2), an application for renewal received even after the period prescribed in Rule 8 (2), may be entertained subject to payment of penalty. 8. Rule 17 of the Rules of 1986 pertains to renewal of mining lease per in its under sub-rule (2), an application for renewal received even after the period prescribed in Rule 8 (2), may be entertained subject to payment of penalty. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 of the Rules of 1986 reads as follows: ' 17(2)Where the application for renewal has been received after the period prescribed in rule 8 (2), it shall be entertained on payment of the following penalties: Period of delay Amount of penalty (a) Upto one month 1% of the existing annual dead rent subject to a minimum of Rs.500/- (b) Upto two months 2% of the existing annual dead rent subject to a minimum of Rs.1,000/- (c) Upto three months 3% of the existing annual dead rent subject to a minimum of Rs.1,500/- (d) Upto six months 10% of the existing annual dead rent subject to a minimum of Rs.3,000/- (e) More than six months 25% of the existing annual dead but before the expiry rent subject to a minimum of of lease Rs.10,000/- 9. In view of Rule 8(2) read with Rule 17(2) of the Rules of 1986 a lessee is required to submit application for renewal of lease at least one year in advance from the date of expiry of the lease term, and if for any reason delay occurs in submission of renewal application then it can be condoned by imposing penalty, but no condonation can be made after expiry of lease. 10. In light of the provisions aforesaid the respondent petitioner could have submitted an application for renewal prior to 31.3.2005 and upto 30.3.2006. Under the Rules of 1986 no power is available to the competent authority to renew mining lease by acting upon a renewal application submitted after expiry of the lease. 11. In the case in hand the appellant respondents had no power to renew the lease after its expiry on 31.3.2006. At the cost of repetition, it shall be appropriate to mention that the application for renewal was submitted on 10.8.2006 i.e. after expiry of lease. In our considered opinion learned Single Bench erred in examining the correct scope of Rule 8(2) and Rule 17(2) of the Rules of 1986. The condonation of delay in filing renewal application is available to a lessee under the Rules of 1986 before expiry of lease and not subsequent thereto. In our considered opinion learned Single Bench erred in examining the correct scope of Rule 8(2) and Rule 17(2) of the Rules of 1986. The condonation of delay in filing renewal application is available to a lessee under the Rules of 1986 before expiry of lease and not subsequent thereto. As such, the finding given by learned Single Judge that Rule 17(2) of the Rules of 1986 prescribes that an application for renewal received after the period prescribed under Rule 8(2) can be entertained on payment of penalties, is nothing but misreading of provision. 12. So far as the judgments relied upon are concerned, they too in no manner supports case of the respondent petitioner. In the case of Zakir Hussain (supra) the application for renewal of a mining lease though was not submitted before one year of the expiry of lease deed but was moved six months prior to expiry of the lease. As such, condonation of delay in that case was claimed in accordance with law. In the case of Abdul Karim (supra) a renewal application was accepted by the Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur by condoning delay. The judgment nowhere mentions that the application for renewal in that case was given after expiry of the lease. However, it appears that the application for renewal would have been moved prior to expiry of lease as the delay in the case aforesaid was condoned by imposing penalty i.e. of 20% of standard rent. Beside this, in the case aforesaid the issue before the court was about powers of the revisional authority to interfere with an order passed by the appellate authority and not the power for condonation of delay in submission of renewal application. 13. In view of whatever stated above, we are of considered opinion that learned single Judge erred while accepting the writ petition preferred by the respondent petitioner giving challenge to the orders passed by the Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur dated 26.9.2006 and the order dated 24.4.2007 passed by the revisional authority. The appeal, thus, deserves acceptance, hence is allowed. The judgment passed by learned single Judge dated 4.2.2013 is set aside and the orders dated 26.9.2006 and 24.4.2007 passed by Additional Director (Mines) and the revisional authority respectively are restored. No order to costs. Appeal allowed.