ORDER : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1410/2022 : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 24/02/2015 passed by the Superintending Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, whereby the mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the order dated 18/11/2021 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Mines), Mines Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was rejected. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that vide order dated 06/05/1989, the petitioner was granted a Mining Lease (ML No.08/1999) for mineral Limestone near Village Barna Harsh, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur. While the petitioner was operating the mine, he was served with a notice dated 04/02/2014 for deposition of the dead rent due. Since the petitioner did not deposit the dead rent in pursuance of the notice dated 04/02/2014, the mining lease of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 24/02/2015. Against the order of cancellation dated 24/02/2015, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was also rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 18/11/2021. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.1,21,366/- on 06/07/2015. In the meantime, the State Government also floated an Amnesty Scheme for deposition of the outstanding amount from the lease holders. The petitioner, in pursuance of the Amnesty Scheme, deposited the entire amount due and a receipt was issued to him which is placed on record as Annexure-4(E-challan dated 23/03/2021). The Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that 'No Objection Certificate' was not issued by the respondents, although the Appellate Authority has taken note of the fact that the amount due to the Government has been deposited by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was depositing the requisite amounts due to the Government till he was issued a notice dated 04/02/2014 as the same was his first default. Learned counsel further submits that since the requisite amount was not deposited within the stipulated period of fifteen days, therefore, the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur vide order dated 24/05/2015 cancelled the lease issued in favour of petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that since the requisite amount was not deposited within the stipulated period of fifteen days, therefore, the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur vide order dated 24/05/2015 cancelled the lease issued in favour of petitioner. The order dated 24/02/2015 passed by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal and during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner deposited the entire amount due towards the State Government, though taking the benefit of Amnesty Scheme. Learned counsel submits that though the Appellate Authority has taken note of the deposition of the entire amount due in the order dated 18/11/2021 but merely because 'No Objection Certificate' was not issued in favour of the petitioner, the appeal of the petitioner was rejected and the lease granted in favour of the petitioner was not restored. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court in the case of M/s. Sojat Limes Company vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.14717/2016, decided on 06/11/2017) has taken a view that if certain dues towards the dead rent are not deposited by a person, then harsh penalty of cancellation of mining lease should not be resorted to. He submits that in the present case, the petitioner has not deposited the dead rent for certain period for which he has been penalized with the cancellation of his mining lease which is very harsh. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the orders dated 24/02/2015 and 18/11/2021 may be quashed and set aside and the Mining Lease No.08/99 granted in favour of the petitioner may be restored. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the amount due to the petitioner was liable to be deposited by him within a period of fifteen days from the date of issuance of the notice dated 04/02/2014. However, the respondents were quite lenient in giving time to the petitioner for almost one year and ultimately when the petitioner failed to deposit the dead rent due, cancellation of the lease was made on 24/02/2015. However, the respondents were quite lenient in giving time to the petitioner for almost one year and ultimately when the petitioner failed to deposit the dead rent due, cancellation of the lease was made on 24/02/2015. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that benefit of the Amnesty Scheme cannot be taken into consideration for restoration of the mining lease of the petitioner as the amount due to the State Government was liable to be deposited in full without taking the benefit of Amnesty Scheme. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that deposition of the amount under the Amnesty Scheme cannot make good the amount otherwise due to the Government for restoration of the lease of the petitioner as there was no interim order operating in his favour and the possession of the mine was also taken over by the respondents. Therefore, merely by depositing the amount due under the Amnesty Scheme will not entitle the petitioner for restoration of the mining lease from the date on which it was cancelled. The petitioner will get the benefit only to the extent that the recovery which was otherwise to be made under the LR Act by the Department could be avoided. He further submits that the judgment in the case of M/s. Sojat Limes Company (supra) has no application in the present case as the lease of the petitioner was already cancelled. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed. 7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case including the orders impugned in this writ petition. 8. The facts stated above are not disputed by learned counsel for the parties. The chronology of events shows that the petitioner was issued a mining lease in the year 1989; for non-deposition of the dead rent due, a notice was issued on 04/02/2014. Since the petitioner did not deposit the amount due in furtherance of the notice issued, the cancellation of the mining lease of the petitioner was done vide order dated 24/02/2015 against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same was also rejected vide order dated 18/11/2021. During the pendency of the appeal, certain amounts were deposited by the petitioner and in the meantime the Government floated Amnesty Scheme for deposition of certain dues to be deposited by the lease holders. During the pendency of the appeal, certain amounts were deposited by the petitioner and in the meantime the Government floated Amnesty Scheme for deposition of certain dues to be deposited by the lease holders. The petitioner, taking benefit of the Amnesty Scheme, deposited the entire amount due to the Government vide e-Challan dated 23/03/2021. The calculation of amount under the Amnesty Scheme was made by the respondents. The Appellate Authority has taken note of the amount deposited by the petitioner from time to time and has come to the conclusion that the entire amount in furtherance of the Amnesty Scheme 2020-21 has been deposited by the petitioner, however, rejected the appeal on the ground that 'No Objection Certificate' was not placed on record. 9. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the entire amount due to the Government has been deposited though under the Amnesty Scheme, but because the 'No Objection Certificate' was not issued, the Appellate Authority has taken a hyper-technical reason while rejecting the appeal has force and this Court feels that the hyper-technical objection taken by the Appellate Authority needs to be rejected more particularly when the 'No Objection Certificate' has been issued by the respondent Department on 03/12/2021. 10. It is also noted that the argument of learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner is liable to deposit the actual entire amount due for restoration of his mine and the petitioner cannot get the restoration of his mining lease on account of deposition of the amount under the Amnesty Scheme is noted to be rejected only on the ground that the Amnesty Scheme was floated to give benefit to the mining lease holder. The Amnesty Scheme does not make any distinction for the amount due to the persons in whose favour the lease is in existence or the persons in whose case leases have been cancelled. Therefore, once the petitioner has deposited the entire amount due to the respondents in accordance with the Amnesty Scheme floated, it can safely be presumed that the entire amount due to the Department relating to dead rent has been deposited and there is no impediment in the continuation of the mining lease of the petitioner. Therefore, once the petitioner has deposited the entire amount due to the respondents in accordance with the Amnesty Scheme floated, it can safely be presumed that the entire amount due to the Department relating to dead rent has been deposited and there is no impediment in the continuation of the mining lease of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is also of the view that once the entire amount due to the Government has been deposited though under the Amnesty Scheme, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the restoration of mining lease from the date from which it was cancelled. 11. The argument of learned counsel for the respondent that the Amnesty Scheme cannot be used as a tool to set off the entire amount due to the Government for the non-payment of the dead rent and the same can be used only for avoiding the proceeding under the LR Act is not sustainable in the facts of the present case and deserves to be rejected on the ground that once the entire amount due to the Government has been calculated and the Government itself is desirous to extend the benefit to the persons like the petitioner through the Amnesty Scheme, then the benefits of restoration of the mining lease cannot be denied. 12. It is also noted that the Appellate Authority has taken note of the fact that the amount due to the Government was duly deposited, however, since No objection certificate was not issued in favour of the petitioner, only on this hyper-technical ground, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Thus, this Court is also of the view that since the amount due to the Government has been deposited and the 'No Objection Certificate' thereafter has been issued, the mining lease of the petitioner is liable to be restored from the date of its cancellation. The view taken by this Court in the case of M/s. Sojat Limes Company (supra) that on account of certain amount due towards non-deposition of the dead rent, extreme penalty of cancellation of mining lease cannot be resorted to, also holds good in the present case and, therefore, the extreme action of the respondent in cancellation of the lease for non-deposition of the dead rent due is also not sustainable. 13. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed. 13. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The orders dated 24/02/2015 and 18/11/2021 respectively are quashed and set aside and the mining lease of the petitioner is ordered to be restored from the date of its cancellation. 14. It is made clear that after deposition of the entire amount under the Amnesty Scheme, if any amount is due to the respondents to be paid by the petitioner, the respondents will be at liberty to raise the demand in accordance with law. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1414/2022 : 15. In view of the detailed order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1410/2022, the present writ petition is also allowed and the orders dated 23/03/2015 and 18/11/2021 respectively are quashed and set aside and the mining lease of the petitioner is ordered to be restored from the date of its cancellation. 16. It is made clear that after deposition of the entire amount under the Amnesty Scheme, if any amount is due to the respondents to be paid by the petitioner, the respondents will be at liberty to raise the demand in accordance with law.