ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers:- “i) Quash the Final Order dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure-11) as also entire proceedings culminating into passing of sanction revocation order be quashed and set aside; and ii) the sanction order dated 19.05.2010 (Annexue-1) may kindly be restored and the respondent No.4 may be directed to execute the mining lease deed within a specified time; and iii) any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case, be also granted in favour of the petitioner; and iv) costs of the writ petition be ordered to be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had applied for grant of mining lease for the minerals namely Quartz and Feldspar near Village Rawatpura Tehsil Girva District Udaipur and after finding petitioner suitable vide order dated 19.05.2010 (Annexure- 1), the mining lease was sanctioned in her favour. 3. The respondent No.4 Mining Engineer, Udaipur Division, Udaipur, issued a letter dated 01.06.2010 (Annexure-2) in pursuance of the order dated 19.05.2010 (Annexure-1) wherein the petitioner was directed to complete the formalities for execution of the mining lease deed. The petitioner duly deposited the advance dead rent for six months with Tax Collected at Source, Map Fees vide Cash Receipts dated 09.06.2010 (Annexure-3). The petitioner also purchased the non-judicial stamp of Rs.1,200/- within a week from the date of receipt of the letter dated 01.06.2010, however, on account of a major surgery the petitioner had to undergo on an emergent basis, the petitioner could not submit the stamp papers in pursuance of the letter dated 01.06.2010. 4. The petitioner submitted an application dated 07.04.2011 (Annexure-4) before the respondent No.4 seeking extension of time for compliance of the letter dated 01.06.2010. The respondent No.4 issued an order dated 07.07.2011 (Annexure-7) and revoke the sanction of mining lease. The petitioner being aggrieved of the aforementioned order preferred the revision petition before the respondent No.1-Secretary Department of Mines and the said revision was dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure-11). Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 5. The respondent No.4 issued an order dated 07.07.2011 (Annexure-7) and revoke the sanction of mining lease. The petitioner being aggrieved of the aforementioned order preferred the revision petition before the respondent No.1-Secretary Department of Mines and the said revision was dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure-11). Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that:- (A) The petitioner was not inclined to make compliance of the notice dated 01.06.2010 (Annexure-2) as the petitioner had duly deposited the advance dead rent for six months with Tax Collected at Source for which, the cash receipts have also been placed on record and had further purchased the non-judicial stamps of Rs.1,200/- as well as had subjected financial assurance worth Rs.1,00,000/- and a security deposit of Rs.10,000/- in the form of Fixed Deposit receipts of the Bank, however, the respondents without considering the fact that the other conditions of the notice dated 01.06.2010, could not be fulfilled by the petitioner on account of the major surgery she had to undergo, the respondents arbitrary revoked the sanction of mining lease. (B) The medical record of the petitioner was also placed before the respondent No.1 alongwith revision, however, the same has not been considered and in a mechanical manner, the revision filed by the petitioner has been rejected. (C) As mentioned in the impugned order dated 07.07.2011 (Annexue-7), that the petitioner had been served upon a notice dated 25.03.2011, is not correct as the petitioner was never served upon such notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that assuming that the notice dated 25.03.2011 was served upon the petitioner, then, in the said circumstances, the application dated 07.04.2011 (Annexure-4) filed by the petitioner for extension of time, was filed well within a period of thirty days as laid down under Rule 26(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1960’) and thus, the said application dated 07.04.2011 (Annexure-4) preferred by the petitioner ought to have been considered objectively. (D) The Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, would not be applicable in the present case as the petitioner had duly been issued the letter of intent before the commencement of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Mining Act, 2015 for grant of mining lease under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. (D) The Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, would not be applicable in the present case as the petitioner had duly been issued the letter of intent before the commencement of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Mining Act, 2015 for grant of mining lease under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The said rule is reproduced hereunder:- “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 maybe 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. 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.” (E) Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions, placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) Mrs. Seema Raju Pol Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2016 2 AIIMR 887, decided on 09.03.2016. (2) Kamal Kant Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. passed in DBSAW No.882/2007 decided on 23.02.2023, (3) M/s Sojat Lime Company Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. passed in SBCWP No.14717/2016 decided on 06.11.2017. (4) M/s Neel Kanth Chemical Works, Jodhpur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. passed in SBCWP No.1241/1980 decided on 10.10.1980. 6. Per Contra, learned counsel representing the respondent- State, submits that (A) As per the provisions of Rule 31 of the Rules of 1960, the petitioner was under an obligation to furnish all the details as laid down under notice dated 01.06.2010 within a period of six months and thus, the impugned order has been rightly passed. (B) Upon non-compliance of the notice dated 01.06.2010, the respondents issued a notice dated 25.03.2011 to the petitioner while granting her 30 days’ time and thus, the petitioner had been duly afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing impugned order dated 07.07.2011. (C) The impugned order dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure-11), has been passed after carefully considering entire record and material placed before the authority and upon seeing that the petitioner failed to comply with the notice dated 01.06.2010, the revision application of the petitioner was accordingly dismissed. (C) The impugned order dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure-11), has been passed after carefully considering entire record and material placed before the authority and upon seeing that the petitioner failed to comply with the notice dated 01.06.2010, the revision application of the petitioner was accordingly dismissed. (D) The respondents while following provisions of Rule 26 had duly issued notice dated 25.03.2011 to the petitioner but the petitioner failed to reply to the said notice and thus, the impugned order dated 07.07.2011 (Annexure-7), has rightly been passed while revoking the sanction of mining lease in favour of the petitioner. (E) Learned counsel for the respondent-State thus, urges, that the writ petition filed by the petitioner, deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the material available on record. 8. The petitioner had duly deposited the advance dead rent for six months with Tax Collected at Source in accordance with the notice dated 01.06.2010. Further, in reply, the respondent-State has made a categorical admission that the petitioner in pursuance of the notice dated 01.06.2010, has duly furnished a non-judicial stamp of Rs.1,200/- Fixed Deposit Receipt of Rs.10,000/- towards the security money and towards furnishing assurance, submitted Fixed Deposit Receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.300/- towards the Map Fee by way of letters dated 09.06.2010, 11.04.2011 and 04.07.2011. The deficiency which remained on part of the petitioner is to the extent of non-compliance of filing of the affidavits and filing of identity and domicile certificate, which was to be complied as laid down in paras Nos.5 and 6 of the notice dated 01.06.2010. 9. The petitioner has also placed on record that the medical record (Annexure-5) and upon a bare perusal of the said record, it is reflected that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 02.12.2010 and underwent a major surgery on 04.12.2010 and thereafter, the petitioner was discharged from the hospital on 09.12.2010, as is evident from the discharge ticket of the hospital namely Pannadhay Rajkiya Mahila Hospital, Udaipur, which is placed on record. The petitioner after recovering from the surgery, immediately submitted an application before the respondents, seeking extension of time for making compliance of the notice dated 01.06.2010. 10. The petitioner after recovering from the surgery, immediately submitted an application before the respondents, seeking extension of time for making compliance of the notice dated 01.06.2010. 10. There is no iota of doubt that as per the provision of Rule 31 of the Rules of 1960, the applicant is required to fulfill all the formalities in order to execute the mining lease deed within a period of six months of the order i.e. notice in the present case dated 01.06.2010 (Annexure-2). 11. The respondents in their impugned order dated 07.07.2011 (Annexure-7) have mentioned about notice dated 25.03.2011 which was issued to the petitioner while invoking Rule 26(1) of the Rules of 1960, however, the petitioner has disputed the said notice and has made a categorical contention that the said notice was never served upon the petitioner. It is also seen that nothing has been placed on record by the respondents in order to establish that the notice dated 25.03.2011 was duly served upon the petitioner. If the notice has not been served upon the petitioner and directly, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 07.07.2011 (Annexure-7) has been passed against the petitioner, then the same is dehors the provisions of Rule 26 of the Rules of 1960. Rule 26 of the Rules of 1960, is reproduced hereunder:- “26. Refusal of application for grant and renewal of mining lease:- (1) The State Government may, after giving an opportunity of being heard and for reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant, refuse to grant or renew a mining lease over the whole or part of the area applied for (2) An application for the grant or renewal of a mining lease made under rule 22 or rule 24A, as the case may be, shall not be refused by the State Government only on the ground that Form I or Form J, as the case may be, is not complete in all material particulars, or is not accompanied by the documents referred to in sub-clauses (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of clause (i) of sub-rule 3 of rule 22. (3) Where it appears that the application is not complete in all material particulars or is not accompanied by the required documents, the State Government shall, by notice, require the applicant to supply the omission or, as the case may be, furnish the documents, without delay and in any case not later than 1[thirty days] from the date of receipt of the said notice by the applicant.2[“ (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in subrule( 1) where an applicant for renewal of mining lease under rule 24A is convicted of illegal mining, and there are no interim orders of any court of law suspending the operation of the order of such conviction in appeals pending against such conviction in any court of law the State Government may after giving such applicant an opportunity of being heard and for reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant, refuse to renew such mining lease”]” 12. As per the provisions or Rule 26 of the Rules of 1960, It is mandatory for the respondents to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, in the present case, if the notices has not been served upon the petitioner, then, the petitioner has been deprived of such opportunity of being heard. Furthermore, if the statement of the respondents that the petitioner was duly served upon notice dated 25.03.20211, is believed, then, the application filed by the petitioner seeking extension of time dated 07.04.2011 (Annexure-4) was within a period of 30 days as prescribed under Rule 26(3) of the Rules of 1960. The impugned order dated 07.07.2011, further reflects that the said application filed by the petitioner has not been duly considered while revoking the sanction of mining lease. Also, the Revisional Authority in its order dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure-11), has failed to consider the aspect; firstly, that the petitioner was willing to make compliance of the notice dated 01.06.2010 and secondly, that the petitioner had filed an application for extension of time well within a period of 30 days from the date of notice dated 25.03.2011 and further, the medical record and the illness suffered by the petitioner, has also not duly been considered by the respondents. 13. 13. As an upshot of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the firm opinion that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed, particularly when the petitioner had duly deposited the advance dead rent for a period of six months on 09.06.2010 and the petitioner had also purchased the non-judicial stamp, worth Rs.1,200/- and had duly submitted the application dated 07.04.2011 (Annexure-4) for extension of time for compliance of the notice dated 01.06.2010 and on account of serious illness, the petitioner could not make compliance of the notice dated 01.06.2010. 14. The impugned orders dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure-11), passed by the Mining Department and the order dated 19.05.2010 (Annexure-1) passed by the Directorate of Mines & Geology, Udaipur, are hereby, quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 15. The respondents would be at liberty to impose penalty, not exceeding twice the amount of advance dead rent upon the petitioner w.e.f. order dated 19.05.2010 (Annexure-1) and the terms laid down therein. The said amount of advance dead rent, shall be determined within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the petitioner shall deposit the said amount within one month thereafter. 16. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. Stay application as well as all other pending applications are disposed of accordingly. 17. No order as to costs.