ORDER : 1. All these writ petitions involve identical facts and grounds and therefore, are being decided conjointly. 2. For the purpose of clarity and convenience, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10181/2024 titled as Rahul Vyas vs. State of Rajasthan and Others are being taken into consideration. 3. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of mining lease on 18.06.2013 for the area ad-measuring 4.5 hectares near Village Parewar, Tehsil & District Jaisalmer for mineral Silica Sand. Petitioner’s application was processed and a Letter of Intent (for short ‘LOI’) dated 28.01.2014 came to be issued in his favour. 4. On 28.08.2015, the respondent no. 4-Additional Director (Mines) sent a communication to the petitioner to produce Environmental Clearance as per the Notification dated 07.10.2014 issued by the Central Government so also to deposit FDR of Rs. 75,000/-. Before needful could be done, the mineral-Silica Sand [which was major mineral and covered by the provisions of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MMDR’)] came to be declared as ‘minor mineral’ and thus, governed by Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1986’). 5. Be that as it may. The Rules of 1986 were repealed and new set of rules known as the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MMCR’) came to be promulgated w.e.f. 01.03.2017. 6. According to rule 5 of the MMCR, the pending applications including the applications under MMDR were saved subject, however, to the provisions of sub-rule (1) and other relevant provisions of rule 5 of MMCR. 7. The respondent-Mining Engineer sent a letter dated 30.03.2017 and asked the petitioner to pay differential application fee of Rs.6,500/- premium amount of Rs. 1,68,750/- and the consent of the land holder, if the LOI is in respect of a khaterdari land. 8. On 03.05.2017, the petitioner submitted a reply and stated that the mining area in the relation whereof, the LOI has been issued to him, is not a khatedari land and also that he would carry out the remaining compliance to the notice dated 30.03.2017 at the time of registration of mining lease. 9. The respondent no. 8. On 03.05.2017, the petitioner submitted a reply and stated that the mining area in the relation whereof, the LOI has been issued to him, is not a khatedari land and also that he would carry out the remaining compliance to the notice dated 30.03.2017 at the time of registration of mining lease. 9. The respondent no. 5 again sent a communication dated 21.08.2017 and asked the petitioner to deposit the amount mentioned in the notice dated 30.03.2017 within a period of 30 days, failing which the action in accordance with law would be taken. The respondent no. 5 had also warned that the State would be recovering 10 times penalty as provided under rule 16(2) of the MMCR, for delay in complying with the terms of LOI. 10. The petitioner filed a reply raising objections regarding the stipulation about penalty under rule 16(2) of the MMCR, but did not pay differential application fee and premium amount. 11. As the petitioner chose not to deposit the amount of Rs.1,68,750/- alongwith the differential application fee as required by the letter dated 30.03.2017, by way of the order dated 13.11.2017, the respondent no. 4 cancelled the LOI granted to the petitioner, giving out reasons that the petitioner has failed to deposit the differential application fee of Rs.6,500/- the premium amount of Rs.1,68,250/- being 2.5 times of amount of annual dead rent for the applied area and also because he has failed to hand over No Objection Certificate by the khaterdar-tenant. 12. For completion of facts, it may be stated that the petitioner had earlier preferred a writ petition challenging the order aforesaid, which writ petition came to be disposed of by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.03.2018 requiring the petitioner to file a revision petition before the State Government. 13. Petitioner’s revision petition filed before the State Government, came to be rejected vide order dated 31.05.2024. While rejecting petitioner’s revision petition, the State Government observed that the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount mentioned in the notice dated 30.03.2017. It was further observed that the petitioner has also failed to produce Environmental Clearance and even the application was filed on 20.09.2016, whereas the Environmental Clearance itself was required to be filed within 13 months of letter dated 28.08.2015. 14. Mr. It was further observed that the petitioner has also failed to produce Environmental Clearance and even the application was filed on 20.09.2016, whereas the Environmental Clearance itself was required to be filed within 13 months of letter dated 28.08.2015. 14. Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the revisional authority has erred in rejecting petitioners’ revision petition. He submitted that the reason given by the revisional authority that the petitioner has failed to produce Environmental Clearance is absolutely unsustainable, because all the LOIs issued were saved by virtue of rule 5(4) of the MMCR. He further argued that when the petitioner had taken a specific plea that he would deposit the remaining amount at the time of registration of mining lease, the respondents were required to keep their hands off, more particularly when a period of one year has been provided in sub-rule (4) of rule 5 of MMCR. 15. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the pending applications are required to be dealt with in accordance with the provision of rule 16 of the MMCR and according to which, the petitioner’s right could be kept alive by payment of late fee @ 10% of the annual dead rent per month. He argued that the impugned action of the respondents is clearly illegal being contrary to provisions of law and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioners. 16. It was also argued by Mr. Shah that the respondent nos. 4 and 5 were required to at least issue a notice before cancelling LOI granted to the petitioner. 17. Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State submitted that sub-rule (4) of rule 5 of MMCR is not applicable in the present case, inasmuch as this provision saves the LOIs in the event when a LOI holder fails to comply with the conditions of LOI. He submitted that furnishing of Environmental Clearance was made a condition of Revised LOI dated 28.08.2015, but the petitioner’s LOI has been cancelled not for the reason of failure to fulfill the condition of LOI, but for failure to deposit the requisite amount, which is provided in sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of MMCR, and not as a term of LOI. 18. 18. Inviting Court’s attention towards sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of MMCR, learned Additional Advocate General argued that the applications under the MMDR and Rules of 1986 were saved subject to fulfillment of conditions mentioned in sub-rule (1) of rule 5, namely that all such LOI holders would be required to make payment of differential amount of application fee and one time premium. He argued that the payment of this amount was a condition precedent for saving the applications and hence, such conditions cannot be confused with the conditions of LOI so as to seek protection in terms of sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the MMCR. 19. Learned Additional Advocate General argued that there is no error or infirmity in the orders impugned passed by the authorities below, hence, the writ petitions be dismissed. 20. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 21. So far as first argument of Mr. Shah, learned Senior Counsel that revision petition could not have been rejected on the ground of failure to furnish Environmental Clearance is concerned, it has some substance, because Environmental Clearance was made a condition of LOI, when the amended LOI came to be issued to the petitioner on 28.08.2015. 22. Indisputably, the petitioner has applied for grant of Environmental Clearance and the same is pending decision. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the petitioner’s LOI could not have been cancelled for such reason as on the date of passing the impugned order (13.11.2017) period of one year had not passed from the date when the MMCR was brought into force. It is to be noted that the respondent no. 5-the Mining Engineer has not cancelled the LOI for such reason and it is the revisional authority, which has given such reason while dismissing petitioner’s revision petition. 23. Be that as it may. So far as the decision of the respondent no. 5 and revisional authority for cancelling the LOI on the ground of failure to deposit the amount mentioned in the communication dated 30.03.2017 is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the same is perfectly just and in conformity with law. 24. It will not be out of place to reproduce rule 5 of MMCR, herein: “5. 5 and revisional authority for cancelling the LOI on the ground of failure to deposit the amount mentioned in the communication dated 30.03.2017 is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the same is perfectly just and in conformity with law. 24. It will not be out of place to reproduce rule 5 of MMCR, herein: “5. Rights of a holder of letter of intent to obtain a mining lease or quarry licence: (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 [one time premium equal to two and half times of the dead rent which shall be payable] 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: (Proviso deleted) Provided that where letter of intent has been issued in khatedari land, registered consent deed of khaterdar shall be submitted [before grant of mining lease, if such consent deed is not submitted], 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)................. (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 thirteen months from the date of commencement of these rules and this period of thirteen months shall include execution and registration of mining lease or issuance of quarry, 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.” 25. A careful examination of sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of MMCR leaves no room for ambiguity that the pending LOIs or the LOIs issued under the Rules of 1986 or MMDR were saved and were allowed to be processed and considered under the MMCR, subject to payment of differential application fee so also one time premium mentioned in sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of MMCR. 26. A reading of sub-rule (1) of rule 5 clearly suggests that the provision saves all the pending LOIs albeit on fulfillment of these conditions and it is only when these conditions are fulfilled, the application can be treated to have been saved and it is only then, the application can be dealt with as per the provisions of sub-rules (3) & (4) of rule 5. In order words, provisions of sub-rule (3) and (4) come into play when the applications become complete in all respect or become valid upon payment. 27. The petitioner had been intimated by the respondent no. 5 vide communication dated 30.03.2017 to deposit the requisite amount, whereafter again a notice dated 21.08.2017 was sent calling upon the petitioner to comply with the conditions of communication dated 30.03.2017 within a month. But, the petitioner chose not to do the same, for the reasons best known to him. 28. According to this Court, the failure on the part of the petitioner to fulfill the requirement of communication dated 30.03.2017 has an effect of not saving his pending LOI. Therefore, regardless of the fact that the Mining Engineer has written that a premium as mentioned in sub-rule (2) of rule 16 of MMCR being 10 times of the dead rent to be recovered, the State cannot be asked to wait until the conditions of LOI are met with or the time period for complying with the conditions of LOIs is available. The previously granted LOIs can be treated as revived only on payment of premium as per rule 16(2). 29. So far as Mr. Shah’s argument based on sub-rule (4) of rule 5 of MMCR is concerned, the period of one year (which has been amended to 13 months later on) is not applicable in petitioner’s case, as it is not a condition of LOI, which has not been fulfilled by the petitioner. 29. So far as Mr. Shah’s argument based on sub-rule (4) of rule 5 of MMCR is concerned, the period of one year (which has been amended to 13 months later on) is not applicable in petitioner’s case, as it is not a condition of LOI, which has not been fulfilled by the petitioner. The petitioner had neglected to deposit the amount, which was required to be deposited under sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of MMCR, which is the precursor for consideration of the pending applications under the MMCR. 30. Once the pending applications in which LOIs have been issued are considered to be under MMCR (on compliance of rule 5(1) of MMCR), then only the same can be taken as saved and governed by sub-rule (4). Time to fulfill the conditions of LOI can be extended as given under such provision of rule 5(4) of the Rules only when the applications/LOIs are saved. 31. This Court does not find any merit in these writ petitions, for which, they are dismissed. 32. Stay applications and all pending applications also stand dismissed, accordingly.