District Gurgaon (Haryana) through Power of Attorney, Shri v. Government Secretariat, Jaipur

Ashok Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ram Pat Yadav, aged around 33 years, R/o Village Udaka, Post Sohna, District Gurgaon (Haryana). Versus ----Petitioner

1.State Of Rajasthan through Dy. Secretary, Mines Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:8591] (2 of 9) [CW-7249/2007]

2.Superintendent Mining Engineer, Mines & Geological Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur Circle, Jaipur.

3.Assistant Mining Engineer, Mines Department, Kotputali, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7250/2007 Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Khem Chand, R/o Village & Post Sohna, District Gurgaon (Haryana) through Power of Attorney, Shri Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Shiv Raj Gurjar, age around 37 years R/o 59, Aaya Nagar, New Delhi-47 Versus ----Petitioner

1.State Of Rajasthan through Dy. Secretary, Mines Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2.Superintendent Mining Engineer, Mines & Geological Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur Circle, Jaipur.

3.Assistant Mining Engineer, Mines Department, Kotputali, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7252/2007 Smt Veena Yadav w/o Shri Ajay Yadav, R/o Revari, District Gurgaon (Haryana) through Power of Attorney, Shri Anand Gupta S/o Shri Vishambhar Dayal Gupat, age around 42 years R/o 252, Civil Lines, Gurgaona. Versus ----Petitioner

1.State Of Rajasthan through Dy. Secretary, Mines Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2.Superintendent Mining Engineer, Mines & Geological Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur Circle, Jaipur.

3.Assistant Mining Engineer, Mines Department, Kotputali, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, Sr. Adv.-cum-AAG Mr. Jay Vardhan Joshi [2025:RJ-JP:8591] (3 of 9) [CW-7249/2007] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 25/02/2025 Since, these writ petitions share similar facts and common question(s) of law, they have been heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order. For ready reference, facts are taken note of from the file of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7249/2007. Under challenge in the writ petition is the order dated

06.08.2007 passed by the State Government (for brevity, ‘revisional authority’) under Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for brevity, ‘Rules of 1986’) in suo motu revision whereby, the order dated 16.01.2004 issued by the Assistant Mining Engineer granting mining lease of masonry stone mineral to the petitioner, has been cancelled. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner made two fold submissions. Firstly, inviting attention of this Court towards the provisions of Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for brevity, ‘Rules of 1960’), he submitted that the revision petition could have been entertained only by the Central Government that too if preferred within three months from the date of order. He contended that in the instant case, the State Government has exercised the revisional jurisdiction without authority almost after two and a half year from the date of order dated 16.01.2004 which was impermissibe. His second limb of submission is that the revision petition has been allowed only on the premise that before granting mining lease, the area should have been declared to be available for [2025:RJ-JP:8591] (4 of 9) [CW-7249/2007] allotment as per Rule 59 of Rules of 1960 which applies only in case of re-grant whereas, he was allotted the mining lease for the first time and being the original lessee, this provision had no applicability. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dated 06.08.2007 be quashed and set aside and the order dated 16.01.2004 be restored. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General, Shri Bharat Vyas, disputing and refuting the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that in the instant case, since, the subject mining lease was issued under the provisions of Rules of 1986, the same shall apply and not the Rules of 1960. Drawing attention of this Court towards the provisions of Rule 47 of the Rules of 1986, learned Senior Counsel submits that it is the State Government which is the competent revisional authority and could exercise this power either on an application filed by the aggrieved party which has to be within three months of the communication of the order or on its own motion with no limitation prescribed for it. He submits that proviso to Rule 47 permits entertainment of the revision petition even after the period of three months if the Government is satisfied that the applicant has sufficient cause for not filing the application on time. Shri Vyas submits that since, in the instant case, the revisional jurisdiction was exercised by the State suo motu, no limitation was applicable. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that under Rule 59 of the Rules of 1986, no area in respect of which, inter alia, the earlier mining lease is revoked, can be allotted unless a 30 days’ notice declaring it as free area is published in [2025:RJ-JP:8591] (5 of 9) [CW-7249/2007] the manner prescribed therein. He submits that it has laud object behind it as it entails transparency and fairness in allotment of the mining lease. He submits that although the provisions of Rule 59 of the Rules of 1960 are inapplicable in the instant case; however, the same are also pari materia with the provisions contained in Rule 59 of the Rules of 1986. He urged that in any case, since, the initial allotment of the mining lease in favour of the petitioner was against the statutory provisions, this Court, in its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not like to interfere in the matter which may amount to revival of the illegal order allotting the subject mining lease in favour of the petitioner dehors the statutory provisions. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. Indisputably, the subject area came to be allotted to the petitioner for mining lease by the State Government after revocation of earlier lease granted qua it in favour of third person. In view thereof, in the considered opinion of this case, provision of Section 59 of the Rules of 1986 has applicability and not the Rules of 1960. For ready reference, Rule 59 is quoted as under:- “[59. Availability of the area for regrant:- (1) No area, which was previously held or which is being held under a mining lease or in respect of which order of grant has been made but the same has been revoked under sub-rule (4) of rule 19 or previously reserved under rule 73 by the Government or restricted for grant of mining lease under sub-rule (1) of rule 4, shall be treated as [2025:RJ-JP:8591] (6 of 9) [CW-7249/2007] available for grant unless a 30 days notice, declaring it as free area, is affixed on the notice board in the office of the concerning Mining Engineer/Assistant Mining Engineer and an entry to this effect is made on the same day in the register of mining leases maintained for this purpose. Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to the renewal of a lease in favour of the original lessee or his legal heirs notwithstanding the fact that the lease has already expired. (2) The notice to be affixed as per provisions of sub-rule (1) shall also be published at least 15 days before the date of receipt of the applications in one or more daily newspaper having wide circulation in the State as well as one newspaper having wide circulation in the area in question].” A perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that much emphasis has been laid on publication of 30 days’ notice declaring the subject area to be free area before it can be allotted by its entry on the same day in the register of mining lease maintained for the purpose and by its affixation not only on the notice board; but, also by publication at least 15 days before the date of receipt of the application in one or more daily newspaper having wide circulation in the State as well as in one newspaper having wide circulation in the area in question obviously, with a laud object to have transparency and fairness in allotment of the State largesses. Indisputably, in the instant case, the subject mining lease came to be allotted to the petitioner vide order dated

16.01.2004 without following the aforesaid mandatory provisions and declaring the area to be the free area for re-grant in absence [2025:RJ-JP:8591] (7 of 9) [CW-7249/2007] whereof, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner was allotted the subject mining lease dehors the statutory provisions. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard does not merit acceptance. As already observed, the earlier mining lease in respect of subject area albeit for major mineral was revoked and it was granted in favour of the petitioner for minor mineral and in view thereof, the proviso to Rule 59(1) is not attracted. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner based on Rule 59 of Rules of 1960 also deserves to be rejected for the reasons; firstly, the mining lease was granted under the Rules of 1986 and not under the Rules of 1960 and secondly, therein also, if the earlier lease has been revoked, the area would not be available for grant unless it is notified in the official gazette and specifying a date (being the date not earlier from the date in the official gazette) from which the subject area shall be declared as free area for grant with an entry to this effect that the area is available for grant, is made in the prescribed register. It has not been the case of the petitioner that the procedure prescribed under the Rule 59 of Rules of 1960 was followed before granting mining lease in his favour. The another limb of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner qua maintainability of the revision petition before the State Government as also it being beyond the period of limitation, has no legs to stand. Since, the grant was not made under the Rules of 1986, Rule 54 has no applicability; rather, the provisions of Rule 47 of the Rules of 1986 are applicable in the present case. [2025:RJ-JP:8591] (8 of 9) [CW-7249/2007] Rule 47 confers jurisdiction upon the State Government to entertain the revision petition either on an application filed by an aggrieved party or on its own motion. If the revisional jurisdiction is exercised on an application by an aggrieved party, the limitation of three months is provided which can be relaxed if the Government is satisfied for sufficient cause. However, if the power is exercised suo motu, Section 47 offers no restriction qua the limitation. For ready reference, Rule 47 is reproduced as under:- “47. Revision.-(1)The State Government in respect of any order, whether in appeal or otherwise passed under these rules by the Director/ 1[Additional Director (Mines)]/Superintending Mining Engineer, 2[Superintending Mining Engineer (Vigilance), Mining Engineer (Vigilance)], Mining Engineer or Assistant Mining Engineer may on an application by an aggrieved party made within 3 months of 3[communication of] such order in this behalf or of its own motion call for and examine the connected records for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order and may confirm, modify or rescind such order: 4[x x x] Provided that an application for revision may be admitted by the Government after the said period of 3 months if the Government is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not filing the revision application in time. (2) Every application for revision shall be made in Form No. 14 in duplicate and shall be accompanied by a treasury challan of 1[Rs. 500/-] deposited as [2025:RJ-JP:8591] (9 of 9) [CW-7249/2007] fee in the Government Treasury under the 2[relevant] head of Account. 3[x x x]” Even otherwise, this Court finds substantial force in the submission of Shri Vyas that this Court, in its equitable jurisdiction, would not like to interfere in the order impugned even assuming that it has been passed without jurisdiction if it would entail revival of an illegal order. Although, this Court is not satisfied that the revisional order is passed without jurisdiction; even assuming it to be so, its quashing would result in revival of the illegal order dated 16.01.2004 which, as already held, has been passed in gross violation of the Rule 59 of the Rules of 1986, which, is not permissible. This Court draws support from a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jagan Singh vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan and Others: AIR 1980 Rajasthan 1. In view of the aforesaid discussions, these writ petitions are found to be devoid of merit and are dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. DIKSHA /57-61 (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J