ORDER : NUPUR BHATI, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- “1. The order dated 09.06.2021 (Annex.7) may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside. II. The respondents may kindly be restrained from revoking the permission for transfer granted in favour of the petitioner by order dated 30.09.2020 (Annex.2) III. The respondents may be directed to permit the petitioner to continue the mining activities under the transferred Mining Lease no. 20/2006. IV. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. V. Cost of the litigation may also kindly be passed in the favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent department had issued Mining Lease No.20/2006 for a period of thirty years in favour of M/s. Kalpatru Minerals for mining of Quartz Feldspar. Shri Parwat Singh Aashiya, father of Shri Devendra Pratap Singh Aashiya, was one of the partners of M/s. Kalpatru Minerals. The firm undertook mining operations in compliance with all legal requirements. Subsequently, the tenure of the mining lease was extended from thirty to fifty years. In the year 2009, the partners of M/s. Kalpatru Minerals mutually agreed to transfer the said mining lease to M/s. Vaibhav Minerals. Pursuant to this agreement, M/s. Kalpatru Minerals submitted an application to the respondent department in the prescribed format for the transfer of Mining Lease No. 20/2006 and deposited the required documents and fees. The respondent authorities considered the application and, by order dated 30.09.2020, permitted the transfer of the mining lease in favour of M/s. Vaibhav Minerals. The order specified that both parties must execute a transfer deed within three months from the date of issuance. Following the said order, a transfer deed was executed between M/s. Kalpatru Minerals and M/s. Vaibhav Minerals on 27.10.2020. The deed was required to be registered within two months thereafter. However, due to one of the partners of M/s. Kalpatru Minerals being under home quarantine and unable to attend the registration process, the deed was registered on 30.12.2020—three days after the stipulated date. The deed was required to be registered within two months thereafter. However, due to one of the partners of M/s. Kalpatru Minerals being under home quarantine and unable to attend the registration process, the deed was registered on 30.12.2020—three days after the stipulated date. Thereafter, M/s. Vaibhav Minerals submitted the registered transfer deed on 01.01.2021 to respondent No.3, who permitted the petitioner to commence mining operations and issued necessary documents, including Challan and Ravanna Books. The petitioner regularly paid the amount of royalty and dead rent. Despite compliance, respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 21.01.2021 to the petitioner, alleging that the transfer deed was registered after expiry of the prescribed two-month period and proposing revocation of the transfer order. The petitioner filed a detailed reply explaining that the registration delay was unavoidable because one of the partners was under quarantine. The petitioner also requested condonation of the three-day delay in registration. Respondent No.2, passed an order dated 09.06.2021, revoking the permission of transfer granted by order dated 30.09.2020 and ordering forfeiture of the amount deposited by the petitioner and thus, being aggrieved of the aforesaid, the instant writ petition has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon the order dated 04.11.2023 passed by this Court in SBCWP No.8643/2021 : M/s Vaibhav Minerals v. Department of Mines and Geology & Ors., submits that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the above-said order. The said order dated 04.11.2023, reads as under:- “1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:- "I. The order dated 09.06.2021 (Annex.7) may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside. II. The respondents may kindly be restrained from revoking the permission for transfer granted in favour of the petitioner by order dated 30.09.2020 (Annex.2). III. The respondents may be directed to permit the petitioner to continue the mining activities under the transferred Mining Lease No. 36/2006. IV. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. V. Cost of the litigation may also kindly be passed in the favour of the petitioner." 2. IV. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. V. Cost of the litigation may also kindly be passed in the favour of the petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent department Issued a mining lease No.36/2006 for a period of 30 years for mining of the minerals in favour of the petitioner-firm namely M/s Kalptaru Minerals. In the year 2019, the partners of the firm had agreed to transfer of the said mining lease to the petitioner's firm M/s Vaibhav Minerals. Thereafter, M/s Kalptaru Minerals submitted. an application to the respondent department for transfer of the mining lease in favor of the petitioner firm M/s Vaibhav Minerals. The application filed by the M/s Kalptaru Minerals was allowed vide order dated 30.09.2020 (Annexure-2). In light of the order dated 30.09.2020, the transfer deed was executed between M/s Kalptaru Minerals and petitioner's firm on 27.10.2020. As per the conditions laid down in the order dated 30.09.2020, the petitioner's firm and M/s Vaibhav Minerals were under the obligation to execute the transfer deed within three months from the date of issuing the order and also the transfer deed was required to be registered within a period of two months, thereafter. The transfer deed was executed between M/s. Kalptaru Minerals and Vaibhav Minerals on 27.10.2020 however, transfer deed dated 27.10.2020 was not registered within a period of two months for the reason that one of the partners of M/s Kalptaru Minerals was suspected of Covid-19 and accordingly, was quarantined at his home and in such circumstances, there was delay in getting the lease deed registered within the stipulated period. The petitioner firm and the firm M/s Vaibhav Minerals thereafter got the transfer deed registered on 30.12.2020 l.e. after a delay of three days from the cut off date. The petitioner's firm duly submitted the registration of the transfer deed before the respondent authorities and the respondent No.3 also allowed the petitioner firm to initiate the mining activities. Accordingly, the petitioner firm started the mining activities from the mining lease in question and also deposit the royalty and dead rent for which documents have been placed on record. The petitioner's firm duly submitted the registration of the transfer deed before the respondent authorities and the respondent No.3 also allowed the petitioner firm to initiate the mining activities. Accordingly, the petitioner firm started the mining activities from the mining lease in question and also deposit the royalty and dead rent for which documents have been placed on record. The respondent No.3 proceeded to issue a notice dated 21.01.2021 (Annexure-5) against the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was required to get the transfer deed registered within two months and the transfer deed was registered after expiry of two months on 30.12.2020. The petitioner gave a detailed reply to the said notices. The respondent No.2 passed an order dated 09.06.2021 (Annexure-7) while revoking the permission of transfer and also ordered for forfeiture of the amount already deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved of the same, has preferred the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was inclined to comply with the conditions as laid down in order dated 30.09.2020 (Annexure-2) as the transfer deed was executed within a period of three months as prescribed in the condition No.2. However, on account of the fact that the one of the partner of firm M/s Kalptaru Minerals was suspected of having Covid-19 and was quarantined at home, condition No.3 could not be complied with and the registration of the lease deed could not be made within the stipulated period of two months however, since the partner who was quarantined was declared fit thereafter, within a period of three days from the date the said registration was duly made and thus, the respondents on account of the fact that one of the partner was quarantined at home ought to have condoned the delay that had occurred. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner was under obligation to make the compliance of the conditions as laid down in the order dated 30.09.2020 wherein, a categorical condition was laid down that the petitioner had to get the lease deed registered within a period of two months from the date of the transfer and the petitioner has utterly failed to comply with the condition and thus, the impugned order has rightly been passed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Admittedly, one of the partner of the firm M/s Kalptaru Minerals was suspected of suffering from the Covid-19 and looking to the gravity of the illness, there were strict direction of the Government to quarantine such people either in hospital or at home and the partner of the firm M/s Kalptaru Minerals was quarantined at home. The petitioner has also placed on record the documents issued by the NEESH Impex Pvt. Ltd. which shows that Mr. Vivaksh Singh an employee of the said company was suggested to work from home as he was suspected of Covid-19 and was prescribed to be quarantined for 14 days during 15th to 29th December, 2020. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and looking to the fact that the registry of lease deed could not be done on account of one of the partner being home quarantined for a period of 14 days, the impugned order dated 09.06.2021 (Annexure-7) passed by the Additional Director, Mines and Geology Department, Udaipur-Zone, Udiapur is quashed and set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 7. The respondents are directed to complete the formalities and proceed further in light of the order dated 30.09.2020 (Annexure-2) passed by the Director, Mines and Geology Department, Udaipur within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.” 4. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. 5. In view of the aforequoted order and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the instant writ petition is allowed in the same terms as in the case of M/s. Vaibhav Minerals (supra) with the direction to complete the formalities and proceed further in light of the order dated 30.09.2020 (Annex.2) passed by the Directorate of Mines and Geology, Udiapur, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order instant. The order dated 09.06.2021 (Annex.7) passed by respondent No.2-The Additional Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur (Rajasthan), is quashed and set aside. 6. Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.