JUDGMENT : 1. The lawyers are abstaining from the work, due to strike. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “(1) By an appropriate writ, order or directions the impugned order dated 11.02.2014 (Annex.-03) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (2) By an appropriate writ, order or directions the respondents may be directed consider the application for renewal of mining lease and grant renewal expeditiously. (3) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (4) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.” 3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, originally, lease was granted by the State of Rajasthan for Mineral Soapstone, near Village Ghughra, Tehsil and District Dungarpur, vide State of Mines Rajasthan, Mines Gr. 2 Department, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur vide order No. 2(177)/Khan/gr.2/84 dated 04.01.1985 for an area of 72.52 hectares for a period of 20 years from the date of registration. 3.1 Subsequently the petitioner applied for the renewal of the lease on 9.12.2002 with all the requisite documents. However, the Assistant Mining Engineer, Durgarpur gave a notice dated 19.10.2012 to the petitioner pointing out certain deficiencies. As per the petitioner, all the deficiencies that were pointed out in the notice dated 19.10.2012 were removed and he was waiting for renewal of his lease. Thereafter, the respondents vide order dated 11.02.2014 rejected the renewal application moved by the petitioner on the following three grounds: a) The requisite consent certificate, required to be obtained from the State Pollution Control Board, in relation to air and water, has not been submitted; b) No plantation, owing to the environment needs, has been done in the mining area and; c) In relation to the protected area measuring 24.80 hectares, the requisite approved mining scheme alongwith progressive mining closure plan were not submitted. 3.2 The petitioner made a representation on 24.03.2014, but the same was not considered, and on 20.05.2014, the respondents refused to consider the application of the petitioner, on count of rejection of the renewal application vide order dated 11.02.2014. 3.2 The petitioner made a representation on 24.03.2014, but the same was not considered, and on 20.05.2014, the respondents refused to consider the application of the petitioner, on count of rejection of the renewal application vide order dated 11.02.2014. 3.3 Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision application on 20.10.2014 before the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Mines & Metals, Department of Mines, Revision Section, New Delhi. Upon the submissions made by the counsel for the revisionist, that on count, amongst others, due to change of jurisdiction, the Central Government is not the appropriate authority thereafter, to decide the cases relating to minor minerals, the Joint Secretary, vide order dated 21/29.07.2016, transferred the revision application to the State Government for disposal, as per the law. 3.4 In pursuance of the aforementioned order, the revision application was forwarded to the Government of Rajasthan, and the petitioner also submitted an application on 04.10.2016 in this regard. However, for more than two years, the revision application remained pending before the Joint Principal Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur; whereupon the petitioner on 22.03.2018 submitted an application to pass final or appropriate orders on the revision application. 3.5 On 08.05.2018, the Joint Principal Secretary, after a long duration of pendency of the revision application, denied to entertain the same, asserting that the impugned order was passed by the State Government, and therefore, the State Government cannot hear and decide the revision application. 4. The petitioner present in person submitted that the conditions laid down by the respondent authority were already fulfilled by the petitioner, thereby curing the deficiencies pointed out by the respondents, in the following manner: a) The petitioner was having the consent to operate (Order no.2010-2011/Udaipur/768/570) issued on 28.05.2010. b) The petitioner has planted too many trees. c) The petitioner had already submitted the progressive plan which was proved by the authority on 19.01.2010. 4.1 The petitioner present in person brought the Court’s attention towards the aforementioned revision application preferred on 20.10.2014, which later on was transferred vide the aforementioned order dated 21/29.07.2016 by the Central Government to State Government for lack of jurisdiction. It was further submitted that the Joint Principal Secretary, Mining, Rajasthan, Jaipur kept the revision appliation pending for more than two years, and was also the one who passed the impugned order dated 11.02.2014. It was further submitted that the Joint Principal Secretary, Mining, Rajasthan, Jaipur kept the revision appliation pending for more than two years, and was also the one who passed the impugned order dated 11.02.2014. 4.2 The petitioner present in person further submitted that vide the order dated 08.05.2018, the petitioner is now left remediless, as no authority is willing and ready to hear the revision application, and due to delay in renewal of mining lease, the petitioner is suffering day-to-day financial loss. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made by the petitioner present in person, submitted that the present writ petition has become infructuous, in view of coming into force of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017. 5.1 It was further submitted that the application for renewal of the mining lease of the petitioner was rejected way back in the year 2014, and since then, no ad-interim order has been operating in favour of the petitioner, and meanwhile, the Rules of 2017 came into force. Sub rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules 2017 is extracted as under, for ready reference: “6. Rights of grantee of mining lease sanctioned before commencement of these rules:- (2) All cases covered under sub rule (1) shall be protected subject to condition that mining lease shall be executed and registered within a period of one year from the date of commencement of these rules, failing which the right of such grantee shall be forfeited and in such cases, it would not be mandatory for the government to issue any order in this regard.” 5.2 Learned Additional Government Counsel also submitted that as per the above quoted Rule, the mining lease was required to be executed and registered within a period of one year, failing which, right of grantee shall be forfeited, and in such cases, it would not be mandatory for the government to pass any order in this regard. 6. Heard the petitioner present in person as well as learned Additional Government Counsel representing the respondents, and perused the record of the case. 7. This Court finds that the lease in question was initially granted in the year 1985, and renewal application was filed in the year 2002. 6. Heard the petitioner present in person as well as learned Additional Government Counsel representing the respondents, and perused the record of the case. 7. This Court finds that the lease in question was initially granted in the year 1985, and renewal application was filed in the year 2002. Thereafter, the Assistant Mining Engineer, Dungarpur vide notice dated 19.10.2012 pointed out certain deficiencies, which, as per the submission of the petitioner in person, stood cured. However, the respondents vide order dated 11.02.2014 rejected renewal application of the petitioner; whereupon the petitioner moved a representation on 24.03.2014 and communication on 20.05.2014, but the same was not considered by the respondents. 8. This Court further finds that the petitioner has been a leaseholder, and application for renewal of such lease was rejected by the respondents, due to certain deficiencies, which, as observed hereinabove, were already stood cured by the petitioner. This Court also finds that the State Government framed the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, thereby changing the entire scenario of the relevant Rules and Regulations governing the issue. 9. Though at this stage, this Court cannot determine the issue, as to whether the petitioner has a right to renewal of the mining lease in question, or not, but the equity demands that the petitioner cannot be rendered remediless. 10. This Court also finds that the petitioner filed an application for renewal of mining lease in the year 2002 and rejection order was passed in the year 2014, whereafter, for about 12 years, the respondents did not take any action thereon, and suddenly passed the impugned order dated 11.02.2014, rejecting the renewal application moved by the petitioner, which ought to be revisited in the given facts and circumstances. The material on record reflects that the respondent authorities should re-apply their mind while taking into account the complete factual matrix with an open mind in the interest of justice. 11. As an upshot of the above discussion, the present petition is allowed, and while quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 11.02.2014 (Annexure-3) as well as order dated 08.05.2018 (Annexure-12), the respondents are directed to decide the application preferred by the petitioner for renewal of mining lease, afresh, on merits, within a period of three months from today, strictly in accordance with law. All pending applications stand disposed of.