Lal Chand Balodia vs U O I And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 4294 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:19065]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6077/2006

Lal Chand Balodia, Son of Shri Jodhraj, aged about 65 years,
resident of SB-109, Lal Kothi, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) (Since
deceased) through legal representatives:-
1/1. Chandra Prakash, Son of Late Shri Lal Chand Balodia, aged
about 53 years, resident of H-48, Dev Vihar, Ramnagar
Extension, Sodala, Jaipur
1/2. Ram Prakash, Son of Late Shri Lal Chand Balodia, aged
about 50 years, resident of H-48, Dev Vihar, Ramnagar
Extension, Sodala, Jaipur
1/3. Smt. Kamlesh Devi, daughter of Late Shri Lal Chand
Balodia, aged about 60 years, resident of 77, Gajsinghpura,
Heerapura, Jaipur
1/4. Smt. Geeta Devi, Daughter of Late Shri Lal Chand Balodia,
aged about 65 years, resident of 3219, 1st Crossing, Kalyan Ji ka
Rasta, Jaipur
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.     Union of India through Secretary to the Govt. of India,
Minstry of Mines, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi
2.     State of Rajsthan through Secretary Department of Mines
and Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur
3.     Director, Mines and Geology, Udaipur
4.     Assistant Mining Engineer, Tonk
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Ashwani Chobisa
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Zakir Hussain, AGC with
                                 Mr. Zaid Khan



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

                                  Judgment

Reserved on                      10/07/2023
Pronounced on                     25/08/2023

1. The instant writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India against the order dated 27.06.2006, passed

[2023:RJ-JP:19065] (2 of 5) [CW-6077/2006]

by the Director, Mines and Geology, whereby the mining lease of

the petitioner was dismissed and further against the order dated

28.04.2004, passed by the Central Government, whereby the

petitioner was directed to clear all outstanding dues for the revival

of the mining lease.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that on 25.07.1989, the petitioner filed an application for the

grant of mining lease for the minerals-Garnet, Mica, Felspar and

Quartz, for the subject area of village Janakpura, Tehsil Malpura,

District Tonk. Thereafter, on 22.08.1990, the mining lease was

sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. However, subsequently,

vide order dated 31.03.2001, the said mining lease was dismissed

on the ground of non-deposition of deadrent. As per the version

of the petitioner, the outstanding amount was duly deposited by

13.09.2001 and therefore, in substance, compliance was made of

the order dated 31.03.2001. Accordingly, the petitioner being

aggrieved of the order dated 31.03.2001, filed a revision petition

before the Central Government for restoration of the mining lease.

Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 28.04.2004, the Central

Government allowed the revision petition and quashed the order

of dismissal dated 31.03.2001, in addition to remanding the

matter back to the State Government to restore the mining lease

of the petitioner, subject to the clearance of all the outstanding

dues, within a specified window of time.

3. In this regard, on 30.04.2005, a notice was served

upon the petitioner whereby he was required to deposit the

deadrent for the intervening period as well as a security amount to

the tune of Rs. 8,000/-, in terms of Rule 27(5) of the Mineral

[2023:RJ-JP:19065] (3 of 5) [CW-6077/2006]

Concession Rules, 1960. Therefore, in this background and on

account of non-compliance of the notice dated 30.04.2005, vide

order impugned dated 27.06.2006, the Director, Mines and

Geology dismissed the mining lease of the petitioner. Aggrieved

with said impugned order, learned counsel has submitted that the

petitioner was not legally required/entitled to pay the deadrent for

the period for which the possession of the mining lease did not

remain with the petitioner and similarly, he was not

required/entitled to pay the enhanced security of Rs. 8,000/- as

well, in view of the letter dated 11.04.2002, issued by the Under

Secretary, Government of India to the State Government, whereby

directions were issued to apply the amendment in MCR

prospectively and not to the lease which were granted or executed

before 18.01.2000. In support of his contentions, learned counsel

placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in M/s Mahadev

Minerals & Chemical, Nagaur Versus the State of Rajasthan

& Ors.: SBCWP No. 7993/2014.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have

raised the following preliminary objections as well as grounds, for

the dismissal of the present writ petition:-

(a) That after the enactment of the new law in the year

2017, the mining leases are covered by way of auctions and

therefore, the mining lease in question does not survive as on

date;

(b) That vide order dated 28.04.2004, while allowing the

revision petition, the Central Government remanded the matter

back to the State Government for restoring the mining lease,

howsoever, the same was subject to a condition of clearing all the

[2023:RJ-JP:19065] (4 of 5) [CW-6077/2006]

outstanding dues. In the said order, a sympathetic view had been

adopted by the Central Government in allowing the revision

petition conditionally, in spite of observing the fact that the

petitioner was a habitual violater, especially in complying with the

orders of the Government. Moreover, in terms of the remand

order, adequate time was provided to the petitioner vide notice

dated 30.04.2005 (Annex.10) i.e. 60 days to carry out the

requisites for restoring the mining lease. However, despite the

same, no compliance was effectuated by the petitioner, thereby

contravening the provisions of Rule 27(5) of the Mineral

Concession Rules, 1960. Therefore, in light of the above,

impugned order dated 27.06.2006, was passed in accordance with

law.

4. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for

both the sides, scanned the record of the writ petition and perused

the judgment(s) cited at Bar.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it is

noted that vide orders dated 28.04.2004 and 30.04.2005,

opportunity and/or time was granted to the petitioner to deposit

the deadrent for the intervening period, along with all the other

dues pending qua the petitioner, within a period of 60 days.

However, the petitioner has categorically and admittedly failed to

comply with the aforesaid. Moreover, in addition to the non-

compliance of the conditions/requirements imposed by the

impugned order(s), the petitioner has failed to challenge the

validity of the remand order, in toto. Therefore, due to the non-

payment/clearance of the dues as required to be cleared within

the specified time, Rule 27(5) of the Mineral Concession Rules,

[2023:RJ-JP:19065] (5 of 5) [CW-6077/2006]

1960 was violated and the impugned order dated 27.06.2006, was

passed, prior to which, despite granting opportunity, the petitioner

neither deposited the due amount/outstanding amount nor filed

any defence/objection. Therefore, in light of the same, the order

dated 27.06.2006 was challenged by way of the present writ

petition, which for some reason on the other, was not persuaded

by the petitioner for 17 long years. Moreover, in the meantime,

there was a change in the law and that after the enactment of the

new law in the year 2017, the mining leases were covered by way

of auctions. Accordingly, in the aforesaid facts, this Court deems

it appropriate to dismiss the present writ petition.

6. Accordingly, present writ petition is dismissed. All

pending applications stand disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

Pooja /88

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)