Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 979 (RAJ)

Ravi Prakash Mishra v. State of Rajasthan

2019-04-02

SANGEET LODHA

body2019
JUDGMENT Sangeet Lodha, J. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of notification dated 15.2.13 issued by the Joint Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan, whereby out of the mining area measuring 17.64 sq. kilometer of mineral cement grade limestone reserved for prospection and mining vide notification dated 4.1.08, certain mining area has been dereserved w.e.f. 16.2.13. The petitioner has sought further directions for consideration of his case for renewal/approval/fresh grant of the mining lease in his favour in respect of the mining area covered by mining lease earlier granted in his favour. 2. The facts in nutshell are that a mining lease over an area of 15 sq. kms. of land situated in Village Murkasani, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur, was granted to the petitioner for mineral limestone in the year 1976 for a period of five years, which was renewed in the year 1981 for a period of ten years. On coming into force of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short "the Rules of 1986"), maximum lease area was determined at 10 sq. kms. and therefore, the petitioner made an application for renewal in the year 1991 for the area 10 sq. kms. and remaining area was surrendered. Vide order dated 17.1.97, second renewal was granted in favour of the petitioner for the mining area 999.97 (10 sq. kms.) for a period of ten years w.e.f. 8.7.91 and the annual dead rent payable was determined at Rs. 3,65,415/-. On account of failure of the petitioner in clearing dues regarding dead rent etc. despite notice being issued, vide order dated 16.12.98 issued by the Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Udaipur, the renewal of the mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 17.1.97 was revoked and the security amount was forfeited. The possession of the mining area was taken and it was declared vacant. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.98, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the State Government under Rule 43 of the Rules of 1986, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.8.99 observing that the renewal of the mining lease is possible only when the existing mining lease is operative. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.98, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the State Government under Rule 43 of the Rules of 1986, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.8.99 observing that the renewal of the mining lease is possible only when the existing mining lease is operative. However, while taking into consideration the willingness of the petitioner to clear the dues of dead rent, the directions were issued to take proceedings for restoration of the mining lease, on the petitioner depositing 40% of the outstanding dues of Rs. 11.76 lacs i.e. a sum of Rs. 4,70,640/- within a period of 30 days and remaining amount in six monthly installments. That apart, 25% of the amount of land tax was required to be deposited within 30 days and remaining 75% in installments as may be directed by the State Government, in case no stay order granted by the court was operative. It was further ordered that on the outstanding dues of dead rent and land tax, interest shall be payable, which shall be recovered along with instalments. 4. The legality of the order dated 25.8.99 was not challenged by the petitioner by taking appropriate remedy rather, as averred in the petition, he made representation in this regard to the Department of Mines and finally made an application under Rule 57 of the Rules of 1986 before the Deputy Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of his application under Rule 57 of the Rules of 1986, by way of impugned notification, his mining area has been dereserved and thus, the petitioner stands deprived of his right over the mining area covered by the mining lease. Hence, this petition. 5. It is pertinent to note that on 14.3.13, a coordinate Bench of this court while recording the submission of Mr. Arjun Singh, the power of attorney holder of the petitioner, passed an order in following terms: " The lawyers are not present as they are observing strike. Mr. Arjun Singh S/o Sh. Manohar Singh, power of attorney holder of petitioner Ravi Prakash Mishra and Mr. Rajendra Singh Mehta, authorized representative of petitioner Ravi Prakash Mishra submitted that against the rejection of renewal application of mining lease No.5/91 situated at Murkasani, Tehsil Bilara, Dist. Jodhpur, the revision petition filed by the present petitioner is pending before the concerned Dy. Arjun Singh S/o Sh. Manohar Singh, power of attorney holder of petitioner Ravi Prakash Mishra and Mr. Rajendra Singh Mehta, authorized representative of petitioner Ravi Prakash Mishra submitted that against the rejection of renewal application of mining lease No.5/91 situated at Murkasani, Tehsil Bilara, Dist. Jodhpur, the revision petition filed by the present petitioner is pending before the concerned Dy. Secretary (Mines), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur under Rule 57 of the MMCR, 1986 and they have also filed a stay application before the said authority on 4.1.2013, but on the other hand, the State Government through the Joint Secretary (Mines), has issued a fresh notification (Annex.8) on 15.2.2013 inviting other applications for said mining area of 11.609 sq. kms. vide para 6 of the said notification (Annex.8) and the applications for the grant of mining lease for the said area are to be filed between the period from 19.3.2013 to 18.4.2013 and hence there is urgency in the matter, since if the fresh applications are invited and filed, that would cause multiplicity of litigation for the petitioner. The matter requires consideration. Issue show cause notice to the respondent/s. Copy of this order may also be sent to the respondent/s along-with notice. Rule is made returnable within a period of two weeks. "Dasti". Direct service permitted. Counsel to file proof of service on the respondent/s, and not merely proof of despatch of notices, before the next date positively. In the alternative, affidavit of the counsel/party of compliance to the extent made, be filed. The respondents are expected to file reply to the writ petition also before the next date. For a period of two weeks, the respondents shall maintain status quo with regard to said mining lease No.5/91 situated at Murkasani, Tehsil Bilara, Dist. Jodhpur." (Emphasis added) 6. As noticed above, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 16.11.98, revoking the mining lease and forfeiting security deposit, was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.8.99, however, the Appellate Authority directed restoration of mining lease on appellant depositing the outstanding dues in the terms indicated above. The petitioner failed to deposit the amount as directed by the Appellate Authority and thus, the order revoking the renewal of the mining lease attained finality. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, he continue to make representation, which are placed on record as Annexure-7. The petitioner failed to deposit the amount as directed by the Appellate Authority and thus, the order revoking the renewal of the mining lease attained finality. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, he continue to make representation, which are placed on record as Annexure-7. The representations alleged to have been made by the petitioner bears the dates of the year 2010 and 2012. In para no.20 of the writ petition, the petitioner makes reference of the said representations alleged to have been made after passing of the order dated 25.8.99. 7. It is further averred that the petitioner finally made an application under Rule 57 of the Rules of 1986. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner while making submissions before this Court on 14.3.13 as also the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner today had referred to the said application made under Rule 57 of the Rules of 1986 as the revision petition, filed against rejection of the renewal application, whereas a perusal of the application placed on record as Annexure-1 reveals that it was an application made in the year 2013 before the authority who passed the order dated 25.8.99 for cancellation of the order. 8. It is also relevant to note that under Rule 57 of the Rules of 1986, provide for correction of any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the order passed by the Government or any Officer under the Rules as also the error arising therein from accidental slip or omission. Suffice is to say that the power conferred under Rule 57 of the Rules upon the Government or any other Officer is the power for rectification of error, it is neither the power of revision nor review and thus, apparently while projecting the application made under Rule 57 of the Rules as a revision petition against the order refusing renewal of the mining lease, the petitioner has attempted to misguide this Court. 9. In any case, on account of the representations and application made under Rule 57 of the Rules, after so many years since dismissal of appeal against the renewal cannot have effect of revival of petitioner's right to claim the renewal which already stand closed inasmuch as he had failed to deposit the outstanding dues in the manner directed vide order dated 25.8.99 within the stipulated time. Suffice it to say that right of the petitioner to claim renewal of mining lease stands closed. Thus, in absence of any subsisting right, the petitioner cannot be permitted to question legality of notification dated 15.2.13 issued by the Joint Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan as aforesaid. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 14.3.13 passed by this Court extended from time to time is vacated. A copy of this order may be sent to the Director, Mines and Geology, Government of Rajasthan, Udaipur forthwith.