Judgment · High Court · 2011

Mr. P.C. Sharma, for petitioner. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order of Additional Director (Mines) dt.14.12.2006 whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against rejection of his application for renewal was rejected and so also against the order dt.14.03.2011 passed by Dy. Secretary whereby second appeal preferred by the petitioner u/R.43 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules,1986 came to be dismissed. The petitioner was initially allotted mining lease no.55/90 in village Bokoli, Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur for excavation of mineral Khanda, Gitti etc. However, application was filed for renewal of mining lease and that came to be dismissed assigning reasons that if the mining activities are allowed to continue on hills near Bokoli which is being used as a natural dam and the height of hill becomes low there are full possibilities that water of river Gambhiri may enter the village of its catchment area and there may be chances of (2) CWP-5726/11 flood in the area added to river Gambhiri, in case any further extension of mining lease is being granted to the petitioner. However, appeal came to be preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Director (Mines) and taking note of the report of District Collector, Bharatpur dt.08.08.2006 which was based on the recommendations of the committee constituted when the stage came for extension for mining lease allotted to different persons taking note thereof the appeal came to be dismissed. However, at the stage when second appeal was preferred there was no contrary material came on record to disturb the report of the committee, reference of which has been made (supra), taking note thereof second appeal preferred came to be dismissed on

14.03.2011. Counsel submits that in the nearby place where the petitioner was having his mining lease certain mining lease holders were also there and in their cases extension has been granted and this action of the respondents is discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and it is admitted before this Court that what is being urged was never raised either at the stage when the appeal was preferred before the Additional Director (Mines) or before the Government. However, counsel submits that (3) CWP-5726/11 verbal submissions were made but in the absence of any cogent material being placed on record the submission made could not be examined by this Court. This Court does not find any manifest error being committed by the authorities which may call for interference. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi),J. VS Shekhawat/-p.3