JUDGMENT : 1. Though the matters has been listed in the ‘orders’ category, however, at the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matters were heard finally today itself. 2. These petitions have been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, claiming following reliefs: SBCWP 1344/2015 “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by a writ of mandamus/certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction:- (i) The order dated 17.11.2014 (Anx. 20) passed by the respondent No.2 as well as the order dated 17.7.2012 (Anx.19) passed by the Additional Director, Mines, Jodhpur may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the order dated 31.8.1987 (Annexure-4) and 31.08.2009 (Annexure-17) may also be quashed and set aside and the allotment made in favour of respondent no.4 may be quashed. (iii) The respondent No.4 may be directed to consider only the applications submitted on 28.12.1983 pursuant to the notification dated 30.11.1983(Annexure-1) and to grant Quarry No. 577 in Sodan ki Dhani to the petitioner on preferential basis excluding the other applicants since they are not before this Hon'ble Court; (iv) any other appropriate order or direction that may be considered just & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case; and (v) allow the costs of the writ petition to the petitioner.” SBCWP 1342/2015 “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by a writ of mandamus/certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction:-(i)The order dated 17.11.2014 (Anx. 19) passed by the respondent No.2 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the order dated 31.8.1987 (Annexure-4) and 31.08.2009 (Annexure-17) may also be quashed and set aside and the allotment made in favour of respondent no.4 may be quashed. 19) passed by the respondent No.2 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the order dated 31.8.1987 (Annexure-4) and 31.08.2009 (Annexure-17) may also be quashed and set aside and the allotment made in favour of respondent no.4 may be quashed. (iii) The respondent No.3 may be directed to consider only the applications submitted on 28.12.1983 pursuant to the notification dated 30.11.1983 (Annexure-1) and to grant Quarry No. 578 in Sodan ki Dhani to the petitioner on preferential basis excluding the other applicants since they are not before this Hon'ble Court; (iv) any other appropriate order or direction that may be considered just & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case; and (v) allow the costs of the writ petition to the petitioner.” SBCWP 1343/2015 “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by a writ of mandamus/certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction:- (i) The order dated 17.11.2014 (Anx. 20) passed by the respondent No.2 as well as the order dated 17.7.2012 (Anx.19) passed by the Additional Director, Mines, Jodhpur may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the order dated 31.8.1987 (Annexure-4) and 31.08.2009 (Annexure-17) may also be quashed and set aside and the allotment made in favour of respondent no.4 may be quashed. (iii) The respondent No.4 may be directed to consider only the applications submitted on 28.12.1983 pursuant to the notification dated 30.11.1983 (Annexure-1) and to grant Quarry No. 577 in Sodan ki Dhani to the petitioner on preferential basis excluding the other applicants since they are not before this Hon'ble Court; (iv) any other appropriate order or direction that may be considered just & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case; and (v) allow the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.” 3. Since, common questions of facts and law are involved in these matters, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. For the purpose of deciding this bunch of matters, facts of SBCWP No. 1344/2015 are being taken into consideration. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur delineated Sodan ki Dhani Sandstone boundary in the year 1961 and subsequently, the quarry area map was extended in the year 1983 dated 30.11.1983. For the purpose of deciding this bunch of matters, facts of SBCWP No. 1344/2015 are being taken into consideration. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur delineated Sodan ki Dhani Sandstone boundary in the year 1961 and subsequently, the quarry area map was extended in the year 1983 dated 30.11.1983. A notification was issued by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, inviting applications for grant of Rent cum royalty leases in this block for quarry No. 526 to 615 on 28th December, 1983. It was mentioned in the notification that allotment shall be made under Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1977’). 5. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application for allotment of Quarry No. 576 Sodan ki Dhani in the prescribed form and in the manner as stated in the notification dated 30th November, 1983 and deposited the application fee of Rs. 5/-as per Rule 25 of the Rules of 1977 along with 36 other persons, whereas, Smt. Reena Solanki, respondent No.5, did not submit any application on 28th December, 1983. The Government of Rajasthan vide its order dated 10th January, 1986 fixed three months limit for disposal of the applications for Rent-cum-royalty leases. But Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, respondent no. 4, did not dispose of the applications within the time limit fixed by the Government. The respondent No. 4 granted hundreds of quarries in Sodan ki Dhani area as was notified. 6. Then thereafter, in the year 1986, new Rules came into existence and the old rules, i.e, Rules of 1977, were repealed vide Gazette Notification dated 04.03.1986. The Mining Engineer, Jodhpur vide its notification dated 19.06.1986, which was published in "Jaltedeep" Daily News Paper dated 21.06.1986 advertised that those persons who have applied for grant of rent cum royalty leases under Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 and have not received final reply from his Office, such applicants may submit application in Form No. 1C under Rule 23(2) of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1986’) within 15 days of the advertisement by depositing difference application fee of Rs. 20/-, failing which all applications submitted under the Rules of 1977 shall be deemed to be rejected. 7. 20/-, failing which all applications submitted under the Rules of 1977 shall be deemed to be rejected. 7. Then in connection with the disposal of the pending applications for mineral Sandstone near village Fidusar, Kaliberi, Paldi District Jodhpur the Director of Mines and Geology Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur wrote a letter dated 11.09.1986 and directed the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur that all pending applications received prior to commencement of the Rules of 1986 may be rejected by refunding application fee and action may be taken for allotment under new Rules. 8. Thereafter, the applications dated 28.12.1983 were rejected by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur vide order dated 31.08.1987 mentioning therein that applications were submitted under the Rules of 1977 and now, the Rules of 1986 has come into force and allotment of quarries is to be done in accordance with these Rules. 9. The State Government then issued directions vide order dated 17.12.1988, that in old notified boundaries (the areas already notified prior to coming into force of the Rules of 1986 and in process of grant) the quarry licenses shall be granted without adopting the procedure for lottery as envisaged by Rule 27 of the Rules of 1986. 10. Thereafter, one Sh. Dinesh Chandra, Respondent No.5 submitted the application dated 18.12.1992 for the allotment of Quarry No. 576, which was subsequently rejected by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur vide order dated 12.01.1993, stating that: “(i) this quarry has not been sanctioned single time, it has to be characterized as per rules. (ii) quarry has to be notified” . 11. Thereafter, Sh. Dinesh Chandra filed a revision application against the order of Mining Engineer, Jodhpur dated 12.01.1993 before the Joint Secretary, Department of Mines, Respondent No. 2, to which the reply was filed by the office of Mining Engineer. The Revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 11.01.1995 observing that the applications for the Quarries were disposed of legally. 12. Then, the State Government amended the Rules of 1986 by adding second proviso to Rule 27 (2) and Rule 27 D vide notification dated 12.08.1994, which was published in Gazette Extra-Ordinary Part 4 (C) dated 12.08.1994. 13. The Revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 11.01.1995 observing that the applications for the Quarries were disposed of legally. 12. Then, the State Government amended the Rules of 1986 by adding second proviso to Rule 27 (2) and Rule 27 D vide notification dated 12.08.1994, which was published in Gazette Extra-Ordinary Part 4 (C) dated 12.08.1994. 13. Thereafter, the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, Respondent No.3 wrote a letter dated 16.06.1995 to the Deputy Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan stating therein that: "it has been directed in the judgment dated 11th January, 1995 passed in revision No. F. 16 (455) Khan/Gr-2/93 that quarry may be notified after categorization, but now the State Government has amended the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 by adding second proviso to rule 27(2), hence provisions of this rule shall not apply for plots delineated prior to these rules. This office has submitted the reply of the revision on 10th June 1994 prior to this amendment. Hence matter may be reconsidered and directions may be issued, so that quarries may be notified." 14. Then the Deputy Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan, vide it’s letter dated 07.10.1995 informed the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, that in connection with the order dated 11.01.1995 passed in the matter of Quarry No. 582, 576, 580, 578 and 577, if Quarries were delineated previously, necessary action may be taken under present rules. 15. Thereafter, Shri Dinesh Chandra again applied for the allotment of the Quarry No. 576 by the application dated 05.12.1995 to the office of Minig Engineer, Jodhpur, Respondent No. 4. The application dated 05.12.1995 by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur vide order dated 23.12.1997. Aggrieved by this rejection of the application dated 05.12.1995 by the Mining Engineer, Shri Dinesh Chandra, Respondent No. 5 filed an appeal under Rule 43 of the Rule of 1986 before the Additional Director (Mines), upon which the Additional Director (Mines) granted Stay vide order dated 02.06.1998. 16. Then one, Shri Kailash Narayan Soni suo moto submitted an application dated 27.12.1997 for the grant of Quarry No. 576 to the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur. The Mining Engineer then alloted the Quarry No. 576 to Shri Kailash Narayan Soni vide order dated 03.04.1998. 17. Thereafter, Shri Dinesh Chandra, Respondent No.5, submitted an application dated 09.08.1998 for copy of the order dated 03.04.1998 sanctioning the quarry No. 576 which was given on 09.08.1998. 18. The Mining Engineer then alloted the Quarry No. 576 to Shri Kailash Narayan Soni vide order dated 03.04.1998. 17. Thereafter, Shri Dinesh Chandra, Respondent No.5, submitted an application dated 09.08.1998 for copy of the order dated 03.04.1998 sanctioning the quarry No. 576 which was given on 09.08.1998. 18. Then, Shri Dinesh Chandra, Respondent No.5, filed a Revision Petition in the garb of the order dated 03.04.1998 by which the Mining Engineer had alloted the Quarry No. 576 to Shri Kailash Narayan Soni. 19. The Mining Engineer, Jodhpur and Shri Kailash Narayan Soni filed reply to the above mentioned Revision Petition stating that the applicants who applied under the Rules of 1977 were rejected on 31.08.1997. Shri Dinesh Chandre submitted an application on 18.12.1992, which was rejected by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, vide order dated 12.01.1993 against which Shri Dinesh Chandre filed a Revision Petition which was rejected vide order dated 11.01.1995. 20. Thereafter, Shri Dinesh Chandre filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court in SBCWP 1582/1995 which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Court vide judgement dated 19.11.1998. 21. Then the Joint Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan, Respondent No. 2, set aside the allotment/sanction vide order dated 29.03.2001 with the specific deirection to consider all the applications received for the Quarry No. 576 and issue order for allotment of the Quarry as per the provisions of the Rules of 1986. The aforesaid sanction/allotment was made in favour of Shri Kailash Narayan vide order dated 03.04.1998. 22. Thereafter, aggrieved by the order dated 29.03.2001 passed by Joint Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan, filed a Writ Petition before the Jaipur Bench of this Hon’ble High Court SBCWP 1613/2001 which was decided by Writ Petition No. 1540/2001 by a common order dated 19.04.2010, whereby the Hon’ble court upheld the order of Revisional Court which remanded the matter back to the Deciding Authority, i.e; the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur. 23. Thereafter, Shri Kailash Narayan filed a Special Appeal against the order dated 19.04.2010 which was disposed of vide order dated 19.09.2011, whereby the Hon’ble Court said that the appellants have the remedy available under the Rules and also, the condonation of delay can be allowed in accordance with the law. 24. 23. Thereafter, Shri Kailash Narayan filed a Special Appeal against the order dated 19.04.2010 which was disposed of vide order dated 19.09.2011, whereby the Hon’ble Court said that the appellants have the remedy available under the Rules and also, the condonation of delay can be allowed in accordance with the law. 24. Before the aforesaid Special Appeal was to be decided by the court, the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur alloted the Quarry No. 576 to Shri Dinesh Chandre, Respondent No. 5, vide order dated 13.08.2010. 25. The Petitioner, then, aggrieved by the order dated 13.08.2010 passed by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, filed an appeal dated 07.04.2011 before the Additional Director (Mines), Jodhpur, which was rejected by the Additional Director (Mines) vide order dated 17.07.2012. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.07.2012, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the Joint Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan, Respondent No. 2, which was also rejected by the vide order dated 17.11.2014. 26. Hence, aggrieved by the rejection vide order dated 17.11.2014, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition. 27. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the advertisement/notification dated 19th June, 1986 issued by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, which said that the persons who had applied for grant of rent cum royalty leases under the Rules of 1977 will stand rejected, is illegal and wrong. 28. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the order dated 21.08.1986 by the Director, Mines by which all the applications dated 28.12.1983 were rejected was never sent and communicated to the petitioner. 29. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the order dated 13.08.2010 (ANNEXURE-16) has been passed by the Joint Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan, Respondent No.2, in defiance of the directions issued on 29.03.2001 (Annexure-12) and the Hon'ble High Court on 02.09.2008 (Annexure-14). 29. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the order dated 13.08.2010 (ANNEXURE-16) has been passed by the Joint Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan, Respondent No.2, in defiance of the directions issued on 29.03.2001 (Annexure-12) and the Hon'ble High Court on 02.09.2008 (Annexure-14). In order dated 29.03.2001 (Annexure 12) the Joint Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan, Respondent no.2 held as under: ^^vr% mijksDr foospuk ds izdk'k esa izkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr fjohtu Lohdkj dh tkrh gS vkSj [kfu vfHk;Urk] tks/kiqj }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 03-04-98 ds }kjk vizkFkhx.k ds i{k esa fookfnr [kkuksa ds vkoaVu vkns'k fujLr fd;s tkrs gS ,oa izdj.k [kfu vfHk;ark] tks/kiqj dks fjek.M fd;k tkdj [kfu vfHk;ark dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bu [kkuksa ds fy, izkIr vkosnu i=ksa ij fopkj dj viz/kku [kfut fj;k;r fu;ekoyh 1986 ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr vkns'k tkjh fu;ekuqlkj vkoavu dh dk;Zokgh djsaA^^ The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the Hon'ble High Court Jaipur Bench in judgment dated 02.09.2008 (Annexure -14) categorically held that "there was no need of any re-delineating the area in question and the same was to be allotted on the basis of the priority as per pre-delineation of the plot before coming into force of the Rules of 1986." The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the impugned order dated 13.08.2010 (ANNEXURE-16) does not contain any iota of empirical and scientific evidence supporting the facts. The Respondent No. 4 has flouted the directions of the Dy. Secretary to the Government and the Hon'ble High Court and without any semblance of any evidence has passed the impugned order. The impugned order dated 31.08.1987 (Annexure 4), Order dated 13.08.2010 (Annexure 16) and Order dated 17.07.2012 (Annexure 18) are wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Rules and deserve to be quashed. 30. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the year 1986 new Rules came into existence w.e.f. 04.03.1986 and the old rules, that is, the Rules of 1977 were repealed vide Gazette Notification dated 04.03.1986 published in Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary Part 4 (Ga). 30. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the year 1986 new Rules came into existence w.e.f. 04.03.1986 and the old rules, that is, the Rules of 1977 were repealed vide Gazette Notification dated 04.03.1986 published in Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary Part 4 (Ga). The Mining Engineer, Jodhpur-respondent No. 3 vide its advertisement/ notification No. ME/JO/Khalee-1/86/673 dated 19.06.1986, which was published in ‘Jaltedeep' Daily News Paper dated 21.06.1986 advertised that "those persons who have applied for grant of rent cum royalty leases under Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 and have not received final reply from his Office, such applicants may submit application in Form No. 1C under Rule 23(2) of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 within 15 days of this advertisement failing which all applications submitted under Rule, 1977 shall be deemed to be rejected." It was also submitted that the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur was not authorized to issue such an advertisement/ notification, because it was beyond his jurisdiction and also, the advertisement was published in an unknown or little known newspaper Jaltedeep' would also not be valid. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that advertisement in an unknown newspaper stands on the same footing as no advertisement at all. And the statutory Rules cannot be overridden by executive orders or executive practice. The Government could not have restricted the operation of the statutory rules by issuing the executive instructions. The executive instructions may supplement but not supplant the statutory rules. 31. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the Government of Rajasthan vide it’s Order No. F.14(5)KHAN/Gr.I/180, dated 10.01.1986 fixed three months time limit for disposal of the application for Rent-cum-royalty leases. The Mining Engineer has not disposed of that applications till date. If the government is in it’s actions lethargic, then the applicants can’t be made to suffer. By making the application at the earliest point of time, not only the petitioner has acquired a preferential right of treatment of his application but also by waiting for so long, complying with the legal requirements, he has acquired the legitimate expectation that the petitioner’s application will be considered in accordance with the law in view of the preferential rights. 32. 32. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Mining Engineer, Respondent No. 4, sanctioned the disputed quarry in favour of Shri Dinesh Chandre, Respondent No. 5, vide order dated 13.08.2010 and many others without demanding difference of application fee. Thus it is clearly in violation of the petitioner's right of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in as much as for the persons similarly situated and similarly circumstanced, different yard sticks have been adopted by the respondents. 33. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that Rule 1 of the Rules of 1986 is Short title, extent and commencement. Sub-Rule 1 (3) speaks that these Rules shall come into force on the date of their publication in Rajasthan Gazette, i.e., 04.03.1986. It is well-settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory Rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the Rule must be held to be prospective. If a Rule is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be construed as prospective only. In the absence of any express provision or necessary intendment the rule cannot be give retrospective effect except in matter of procedure. 34. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the petitioner was never made known of the order rejecting his application and he was under the impression that stay order is operating in respect of the quarry and files are with the litigation branch and, therefore, nothing can be said. It is submitted that order dated 31st August, 1987 rejecting the application of the petitioner dated 28.12.1983 was never communicated to the petitioner. It was only in March, 2011 that the petitioner came to know from the office of the Mining Engineer, Respondent No. 4, that his application had long back been rejected in the year 1987 and after obtaining the copy of the order dated 31.08.1987 of the rejection of the application dated 28.12.1983 approached the Court of the Additional Director (Mines), Department of Mines and Geology, Jodhpur by way of appeal on 07.04.2011. 35. 35. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the present case, it was made clear in the notification dated 30.11.1983 itself that the allotment shall be made as per Rule 29 of the Rules of 1977 on preferential basis. Rule 29 of the Rules of 1977 reads as follows: “29. Preferential right of certain persons.-(1) The rent-cum-royalty leases for all minerals excluding marble shall be granted to persons belong to the following categories in the descending order of priorioty:- (I) Mannual workers in the mines; (ii) Persons belong to the schedule caste/scheduled tribes; (iii) Village artisans; (iv) Landless labourers; (v) Ex-soldiers including members of para military forces belonging to Rajasthan, who have been permanently disabled and the dependants of those who have been killed in action; and Rajasthan State Government servants who have (vi) become permanently disabled while on duty or the dependents of those who have been killed on duty: Provided that where two or more applications have been received for the same land, on the same day and from the persons belonging to such one of the categories as mentioned above the competent authority, after taking into consideration the matters specified below, may grant lease to such one of the applicants as it may deem fit:- (i) Past experience in mining with reference to the scientific exploitation and conservation of minerals; (ii) Willingness to set up a mineral based industry in the State; (iii) Technical know how; (iv) Financial soundness and stability; (v) Number of mining leases held; (vi) Any dues outstanding in his name or in the name of the firm of which he is/was a partner: Provided... Provides.…" It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that upon the plain examination of the Rules it would be evident that the preferential rights are hedged by limitations. The preference cannot be claimed automatically and preference can be considered only if the conditions for consideration of such preference come into existence. It is further submitted that Proviso to Rule 29 provides that where two or more applications have been received for the same land, on the same day and from the persons belonging to such one of the categories the competent authority, after taking into consideration the matters specified, may grant lease to such one of the applicants as it may deem. The Rules of 1977 ensure the selection of most deserving candidates and provides priority for grant of mineral concession. The preference has to be exercised only in favour of persons who are manual workers in the mines and the question of preference would arise only when applications are received on the same day and not otherwise. While considering the preference a person claiming such right will also have to fulfill the conditions laid down in Rule 23 and Notification inviting applications. A perusal of these provisions and the procedure provided for implementing such a preference would clearly indicate that people of the general category are not excluded from the zone of consideration. It is only in the contingency referred to in Rule 29 that the Rule of preference will be pressed into service and not otherwise. 36. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that Proviso to Rule 27 (2) and Rule 27 D of the Rules of 1986 as inserted through amendment on 12.08.1994 relating to grant of quarry license for plots delineated prior to commencement of 1986 Rules also does not provide for any categorization or lottery but speaks of a preferential rights of prior applicants. Rule 27 (2) and 270 reads as under: "Rule 27 (2) Whenever a new block of quarries is delineated, the plots to be reserved for allotment to different categories of persons, shall be decided by the competent authority by method of lottery and shall be notified accordingly for inviting applications; Provides that when the total number of plots for allotment is less than 10, these shall be granted to persons belonging to the categories specified in sub-rule (1) in the descending order of priority. "Provided further the provisions of this rule shall not apply for plots delineated prior to these rules." "Rule 27-D. Grant of quarry licence for plots delineated prior to commencement of these rules. (1) Where two or more persons have applied for quarry in respect of the same plot, applicant whose application was received on earlier date shall have a Preferential right for the grant of quarry licence over an application whose application was received later. (1) Where two or more persons have applied for quarry in respect of the same plot, applicant whose application was received on earlier date shall have a Preferential right for the grant of quarry licence over an application whose application was received later. (2) Where two or more applications are received on the same day for any one plot, the competent authority may select and issue quarry licence to any one of the eligible applicants by the method of lottery which shall be drawn by any two of the following persons:- (a) Representative of the Directorate not below the rank of Mining Engineer; (b) MLA/Pradhan of the area; and (c) Collector or his nominee not below the rank of Rajasthan Administrative service." The counsel further submitted that in the present case the petitioner is only applicant having submitted application on 28.12.1983 and, therefore, there was no impediment in way of grant of quarry license in favour of the petitioner. It is a well- settled principle that if the statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, then it shall be done either in that manner or not at all. 37. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent – State raised the preliminary objection that there was an alternate remedy available to the petitioner against the order dated 31.08.1987 under Rule 43 of the Rules of 1986 but the petitioner failed to exercise the alternate remedy. It is after 24 long years, the petitioner had filed an appeal dated 07.04.2011 before Additional Director (Mines), Mines and Geology Department, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur, under Rule 43 of the Rules of 1986 against the order of Mining Engineer, Jodhpur dated 13.08.2010 whereby Quarry No. 576 was alloted in favour of Shri Dinesh Chandra, Respondent No. 5. The learned counsel for the Respondent – State further submitted that the inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the petitioner for filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority in itself is a sufficient ground for non-maintainability of the writ petition. 38. The learned senior counsel for the private respondent submitted that the public notice dated 21.06.1986 was published in daily newspaper ‘Jaltedeep’, which was well known newspaper of that time and also the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur was competent authority to issue the said public notice. 39. 38. The learned senior counsel for the private respondent submitted that the public notice dated 21.06.1986 was published in daily newspaper ‘Jaltedeep’, which was well known newspaper of that time and also the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur was competent authority to issue the said public notice. 39. The learned senior counsel for the private respondents also submitted that the respondent submitted the application under the Rule of 1986 and the petitioner submitted the application under the Rules of 1977 and therefore, the question of differential fees does not arose, the differential amount was supposed to be paid by the applicant who had applied under the Rules of 1977 and re-applied under the Rules of 1986. And hence, it is not the violation of Article 14 of the petitioner enshrined under the Constitution of India. 40. The learned senior counsel for the private respondent further submitted that that the Rules of 1986 came into force in 04.03.1986 and thereafter, a notification was issued by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur dated 19.06.1986 and a public notice was published in the "Jaltedeep" daily newspaper dated 21.06.1986, whereby it was notified that those who applied under the Rules of 1977 may apply within a period of 15 days under the Rules of 1986 and in case the said applications not received then an earlier application shall stand rejected. The petitioner did not apply as per the said public notice dated 21.06.1986, therefore, the petitioner’s applications was rejected. Hence, the petitioner cannot be allowed to claim the benefit for his own wrong. 41. The learned senior counsel for the private respondents also submitted that if it is assumed that the operation of the Amendment Act to the Rules of 1986 is prospective, then also the petitioner has no preferential right over the mining lease in question because he has not submitted the application under the Rules of 1986. 42. The learned senior counsel for the private respondents further submitted that rejection order dated 13.08.1987 was sent to the petitioner by the post and the post was never returned, therefore, it was deemed to be communicated and delivered. 43. The learned senior counsel for the private respondent also submitted that the petitioner did not apply under the Rules of 1986 but under the Rules of 1977. 43. The learned senior counsel for the private respondent also submitted that the petitioner did not apply under the Rules of 1986 but under the Rules of 1977. When the Rules of 1986 came into force, the Rules of 1977 were repealed and hence, the lease cannot be granted under the old Rules, i.e; the Rules of 1977. 44. The learned senior counsel for the private respondent further submitted That at the time of passing the order dated 13.08.2010 by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, whereby the Quarry was alloted to Shri Kailash Narayan Soni, there was no application of the petitioner was pending. The application of the petitioner was rejected in the year 1986, thereafter, the petitioner has not submitted any application under the Rules of 1986 for the allotment of the quarry. 45. The learned senior counsel for the private respondents submitted that the right of the petitioner regarding the application does not subsist now as the new rules have come into force in the year 2017, named the Rajasthan Minior Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 2017’) and Rule 89 of the Rules of 2017 clearly states that any and all applications pending before the enforcement of these rules shall stand rejected except the applications which fall under Rule 4 and Rule 5. The Rule 89 and Rle 4 and 5 of the Rules of 2017 reads as follows: 89. Status of pending applications: Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, all the pending applications except saved under rule 4 and rule 5, on the date of notification of these rules shall be deemed to have been rejected: Provided that on and after the commencement of these rules, all applications including those rejected under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 or rejected under notification dated 3rd April 2013 or subsequently restored shall be deemed to have been rejected and such applicant shall have no locus standai under these rules. 4. 4. Rights of a holder of a prospecting licence to obtain a mining lease: (1) A holder of a prospecting licence granted prior to commencement of these rules shall not have right of renewal but have preferential rights for obtaining a mining lease in respect of that mineral in that land, if the Government is satisfied that the licencee,- (i) has undertaken prospecting operations to establish mineral resources in such land; (ii) has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the prospecting licence; (iii) is otherwise a fit person for being granted the mining lease; and (iv) undertakes to pay premium amount equal to two and half times of the dead rent or as may be determined by the Government from time to time, which shall be payable every year in advance and shall not be adjusted against dead rent or royalty: Provided that premium amount shall stand revised automatically on enhancement of the dead rent of the lease and the lessee shall be liable to pay such enhanced premium. Provided further that all the applications pending for renewal of prospecting licence on the date of commencement of these rules shall be deemed to have been rejected. Applicant of such application may apply for mining lease within a period of three months from the date of commencement of these rules. (2) An application for grant of a mining lease shall be submitted online by the licencee in Form -1 to the Mining Engineer or Assistant Mining Engineer concerned, with a non-refundable fee of rupees ten thousand along with first installment, being twenty five percent of the premium amount, within a period of three months after the expiry of the prospecting licence. (3) Every online application for grant of a mining lease shall be accompanied with scanned copy of following documents, namely:- (i) a copy of PAN card, if the applicant is individual and copies of PAN card of all the partners, members or directors in case the applicant is a firm or association of person or company, as the case may be. Applicant shall also submit copy of TIN number in case of a partnership firm or association of persons or a company; (ii) a copy of driving licence or passport or voter identification card or aadhar card for photo identity and address proof; (iii) a copy of partnership deed and firm registration certificate in case of partnership firm issued under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 or Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 or a copy of memorandum of association, articles of association and certificate of incorporation in case of company registered under the Companies Act, 2013; (iv) a copy of resolution passed by the board of directors in favour of a person who is authorized to sign the application on behalf of the company; (v) a copy of registered power of attorney in favour of a person who is authorized to sign the application, on behalf of the firm or association of persons where application is not signed by all the partners or persons as the case may be; (vi) a copy of no dues certificate from the Mining Engineer or Assistant Mining Engineer, concerned, if the applicant or his/her family member holds or has held any mineral concession or royalty or excess royalty collection contract in the State: Provided that such certificate shall also be furnished by all the members of association of person or all the partners of the partnership firm or all the directors of the private limited company, in case the applicant is a association of person or partnership firm or a private limited company as the case may be. A no dues certificate shall also be submitted by the company or undertaking in case of limited company or Government undertaking as the case may be. Provided further that where any injunction has been issued by the competent court or authority staying the recovery of the dues, non-payment thereof, shall not be treated as a disqualification for the grant of a mining lease. Provided also that no dues certificate shall not be required where the applicant, partners of a firm, directors of the private limited company, members of association of persons, limited company or Government undertaking have furnished an affidavit to the satisfaction of the Government, stating that he/ she/it or his/her family member does not or did not hold any mineral concession, royalty or excess royalty collection contract in the State. (vii) a copy of an affidavit giving particulars of areas already held by the applicant under mineral concession including the area held jointly with other persons, area applied but not granted and granted but not executed or registered; (viii) e-mail address and mobile number of an individual or all members of association of persons or firm or all partners of the partnership firm or company or all the directors of the company or Government undertakings, as the case may be; (ix) a recent passport size color photo of applicant and all the partners, members or directors in case the applicant is a firm or association of person or company, as the case may be; (x) a copy of plan and description report of the applied area with latitude and longitude in WGS 84 Datum of all the corner pillars of the applied area; and (xi) a copy of revenue details of the applied area with khasra naksha trace, khansra or araji number, jamabandi and extent of the area of the khasra or aaraji falling in the applied area along with superimposed map. (4) The holder of such prospecting licence who has already made an application for the grant of a mining lease before commencement of these rules, shall not be required to submit a fresh application and his pending application shall be treated as an application made under this rule subject to payment of difference of application and premium amount as specified in sub-rule (2) within a period of two months from the commencement of these rules. (5) Every application submitted under sub-rule (2) shall be acknowledged, in Form -2, online at the time of submission of application. (6) Duly signed application along with self-certified documents as mentioned in sub-rule (3) shall be physically submitted to the Mining Engineer or Assistant Mining Engineer concerned, within a period of fifteen days from the date of its online submission and same shall be acknowledged by the office concerned. (7) An application for grant of mining lease shall be disposed off by the competent authority as per the provisions of sub-rule (2), (3), (4) and (5) of rule 16 and the decision shall be communicated on registered address and e-mail of the applicant. (7) An application for grant of mining lease shall be disposed off by the competent authority as per the provisions of sub-rule (2), (3), (4) and (5) of rule 16 and the decision shall be communicated on registered address and e-mail of the applicant. (8) Where it appears that the application is not complete in all material particulars or is not accompanied by the required documents, the competent authority shall reject the application and forfeit the application fees, premium amount and performance security deposited, after providing an opportunity of being heard by issuing notice of thirty days. (9) Applications under this rule shall be disposed off, including execution and registration of mining lease, within a period of two year from the date of commencement of these rules or after expiry of the licence period, whichever later, failing which the right of such applicant shall be forfeited and in such cases, it would not be mandatory for the Government to issue any order in this regard. 5. Rights of a holder of letter of intent to obtain a mining lease: (1) Where the competent authority has issued a letter of intent before commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015 for grant of a mining lease under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, such application shall be considered as if received under these rules subject to payment of difference of application fee and premium amount equal to two and half times of the dead rent or as may be prescribed by the Government, from time to time, which shall be payable every year in advance and shall not be adjusted against dead rent or royalty. Such application shall be disposed off by the competent authority as per the provisions of sub-rule (2), (3), (4) and (5) of rule 16: Provided that premium amount shall stand revised automatically on enhancement of the dead rent and the lessee shall be liable to pay such enhanced premium. Such application shall be disposed off by the competent authority as per the provisions of sub-rule (2), (3), (4) and (5) of rule 16: Provided that premium amount shall stand revised automatically on enhancement of the dead rent and the lessee shall be liable to pay such enhanced premium. Provided further that where letter of intent has been issued in khatedari land, registered consent deed of khatedar shall be submitted within a period of three months from the date commencement of these rules, if such consent deed is not submitted within a period of said three months, the application shall be rejected and application fees, premium amount and performance security deposited shall be forfeited, after providing an opportunity of being heard by issuing notice of thirty days. (2) Where the letter of intent has been issued after determining premium through tender or auction under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, such application shall be considered as if received under these rules and shall be disposed off by the competent authority as per the provisions of sub-rule (2), (3), and (4) of rule 16: Provided that such letter of intent holder shall deposit remaining amount of premium as per the conditions of notice inviting tender before execution of lease deed. (3) Where it appears that the application is not complete in all material particulars or is not accompanied by the required documents, the competent authority shall reject the application and forfeit the application fees, premium amount and performance security deposited, after providing an opportunity of being heard by issuing notice of thirty days. (4) All cases covered under this rule shall be protected subject to fulfillment of the conditions of the letter of intent within a period of one year from the date of commencement of these rules and this period of one year shall include execution and registration of mining lease, failing which the right of such applicant shall be forfeited and in such cases, it would not be mandatory for the Government to issue any order in this regard. 46. 46. The learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the order dated 31.08.2009 of the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur was challenged before this Hon’ble Court in Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, SBCWP 12919/2011, wherein the court observed that: “This Court is not hesitant in holding that in view of the order passed by this Court on 16.9.2009 in the earlier writ petitions preferred by the petitioners, no such ground is available to the petitioners in these writ petitions. When the petitioners have not challenged the order dated 16.9.2009 wherein this Court has held that while passing the order dated 31.8.2009, the Mining Engineer has complied with the directions given by the Dy. Secretary (Mines) on 17.12.2005 and the order of this Court dated 2.9.2003, it is not open for the petitioners to again raise this point which was ostensibly decided. In view of the above, the challenge to the order dated 31.8.2009 on the above ground is hereby rejected.” 47. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the rejoinder arguments submitted that the case cited by the learned counsel of the respondent does not have same facts and in the above cited case, the petitioner has himself waived and forfeited his rights as regards to the application dated 28.12.1983 as the petitioner in the SBCWP 12919/2011, applied again in the year 1996 under the new rules and hence his old application under the Rules of 1977 stands waived. 48. The learned senior counsel for the private respondents further submitted that the letter dated 11.09.1986 by the Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Rajasthan to the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur in which he stated that all the pending applications under the Rules of 1977 shall be deemed to be rejected by refunding application fee and action may be taken for allotment according to new rules is applicable upon the applications of the petitioner and also the order dated 31.08.1987 by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur rejecting all the applications pending under the Rules of 1977 was sent to the petitioner through general post. 49. The learned senior counsel for the respondents also submitted that the petitioner has no preferential rights by the virtue of order passed by the Deputy Secretary, Mines, dated 29.03.2001 and the preferential rights were only applicable to the applicants who applied again under the Rules of 1986 and the petitioner did not do so. 50. 49. The learned senior counsel for the respondents also submitted that the petitioner has no preferential rights by the virtue of order passed by the Deputy Secretary, Mines, dated 29.03.2001 and the preferential rights were only applicable to the applicants who applied again under the Rules of 1986 and the petitioner did not do so. 50. Heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record of the case as well as the judgement cited at the bar. 51. This court observes that the petitioner’s application dated 28.12.1983 was rejected by the order dated 31.08.1987 and the petitioner failed to avail the remedy of appeal against above mentioned rejection under Rule 43 of the Rules of 1986 and no reason whatsoever has been assigned for not availing the statutory remedy under Rule 43 of the Rules of 1986. Rule 43 of the Rules of 1986 reads as follows: 43. Appeal. -(1) Any person aggrieved by any order of the Superintending Mining Engineer, Superintending Mining Engineer (Vigilance), Mining Engineer (Vigilance), Mining Engineer [Assistant Mining Engineer or Assistant Mining Engineer (Vigilance)] passed under these rules shall have the right of appeal to the Director. (2) Any person aggrieved by any order passed in appeal under sub-rule (1) or any other order passed by the Director under these rules shall have the right of appeal to the Government. (3) Any person aggrieved by any order of the Director by virtue of the powers delegated or otherwise exercised under these rules on the matters mentioned in sub-rule (1) shall have the right of appeal to the Government. (4) The orders passed by the Government in appeal shall be final. 52. This court also observes that the petitioner’s plea that his application dated 26.12.1983 was still pending with the respondent is not sustainable as the same was rejected vide order dated 31.08.1987 and therefore, the application dated 26.12.1983 ceased to exist. 53. The Court further observes that no approval has ever been issued in favour of the petitioner for the Quarry No. 576, due to which the petitioner had no right over the quarry license in question. The petitioner had not been a party to the case before any court, therefore, no right is established. This court in SBCWP 1886/2011 had vide order dated 01.03.2011 held that mere submitting of an application does not create any right in favour of the applicant. 54. The petitioner had not been a party to the case before any court, therefore, no right is established. This court in SBCWP 1886/2011 had vide order dated 01.03.2011 held that mere submitting of an application does not create any right in favour of the applicant. 54. This court also observes that Shri Kailash Narayan Soni had applied on 27.12.1987 and Shri Dinesh Chandre had applied on 18.12.1992 and on the basis of priority in view of the order dated 29.03.2001 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of Rajasthan, and the judgement dated 19.04.2010 by this court, thus, the allotment order dated 03.04.1998 in favour of Shri Kailash Narayan Soni, mine No. 576 was cancelled. The private respondent Shri Dinesh Chandra was granted approval as per the rules vide order dated 13.08.2010,against which the petitioner filed an Appeal No. 76/2011 before the Additional Director, Department of Mines, Jodhpur, which was dismissed as per the rules by order dated 17.07.2012. 55. This court further observes that the contentions of the petitioner that the private respondent has been wrongly alloted the mines in question is also not sustainable as the petitioner has utterly failed to demonstrate the violation of any provision of law/rules on the part of the respondent while alloting the mine is dispute in favour of the private respondent. It is also an admitted fact that the private respondent moved an application under the Rules of 1986 and the petitioner had moved an application under the Rules of 1986 and the petitioner had moved an application under the Rules of 1977 dispute the fact that vide public notice dated 19.06.1986 an opportunity was given by the respondent state to submit fresh application but the petitioner chose not to submit, thus the consideration of the applications of the petitioner and the private respondent cannot be said to be at par with each other. And, also the petitioner chose not to challenge the order dated 11.09.1986 and the order dated 31.08.1987 passed by the Mining Engineer by which his application and the claim was rejected and rather challenged only the order dated 13.08.2010 by which the private respondent has been alloted. The petitioner has slept over his rights for a period of more than 24 years and thus the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 56. The petitioner has slept over his rights for a period of more than 24 years and thus the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 56. The court further observes that after the promulgation of the Rules of 2017, Rule 89 states that all the pending applications under the old rules shall stand rejected except which are saved by Rule 4 and 5 of the Rules of 2017 and it is apparent from the reading of Rule 4 and 5 of the Rules of 2017 that the petitioners’s case does not fall under the saving clause of aforementioned rules. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the applications are still pending consideration with the respondents is not acceptable as firstly, the applications were rejected way back vide order dated 31.08.1987 passed by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, and secondly, if the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted that the applications were pending, then too after the Rules of 2017 came into force, the applications stood rejected in light of Rule 89 of the Rules of 2017. Therefore, when there were no applications of the petitioners pending before the respondents for allotment of the mining lease in question, then there is no occasion for the respondent to grant the mining lease in favour of the petitioners. 57. This court is of the view that the contention of the petitioner that the order dated 31.08.1987 must have been passed by the State Government is also not sustainable as the petitioner has failed to point out the relevant provision of law which mandates only the State Government to pass such an order. 58. In light of the aforesaid observations, these writ petitions viz. SBCWP 1344/2015, SBCWP 1342/2015 and SBCWP 1343/2015 are dismissed being bereft of merit and all pending applications stand dismissed.