Madan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 09.05.2019 passed by the Superintending Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, whereby the mining lease granted to the petitioner has been cancelled.

It is, inter-alia, indicated in the writ petition that Mining Lease No.100/96 was granted in favour of the petitioner over 5 Htr. land comprised in Khasara Nos. 1345, 1346, 1347 & 1347/1 by the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur by order dated 06.05.1996. By order dated 17.02.2011, the lease granted to the petitioner was terminated for non-compliance of the directions and for violation of Rule 48(1) of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 ('the MMCR, 1986').

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal, the appellate authority by its order dated 31.03.2014 quashed the order dated 17.02.2011 and by imposing penalty to the extent of 50% of the dead rent, remanded back the matter to the Mining Engineer with the direction to restore the mining lease, provide opportunity to the petitioner to rectify the defects and ordered that if needful was not done then after affording appropriate opportunity of hearing action be taken. For the allegations pertaining to illegal mining, the Mining Engineer was left free to take action after affording opportunity of hearing.

Based on the order dated 31.03.2014, the mining lease of the petitioner was restored by order dated 04.07.2014.

Whereafter, the petitioner applied for renewal of the mining lease on 16.09.2016 as the original period of the lease had expired.

However, instead of dealing with the application seeking renewal of the lease, by order impugned dated 09.05.2019 acting on the remand order dated 31.0.2014, the original lease granted to the petitioner (100/96) was cancelled. The Superintending Mining Engineer came to the conclusion that after remand of the matter, notice was issued to the petitioner to do the needful in terms of the directions given in the order of remand, however, despite grant of sufficient opportunity reply was not filed and consequently, the order, as indicated herein-before, cancelling the lease deed (100/96) was passed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the action of the Superintending Mining Engineer, in cancelling the lease deed after the same stood expired in the year 1996 and not dealing with the application filed by the petitioner seeking renewal of the mining lease, is not justified.

Further submissions have been made that the demand raised for alleged illegal mining by the impugned order to the extent of Rs.45,76,550/- has no basis and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set-aside.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.

It is not in dispute that after order of remand and notice issued by the Superintending Mining Engineer pursuant to the said remand order, though after the original mining period was over, the petitioner did not respond to the notice and therefore, in the pending matter, post remand, the order was passed cancelling the mining lease and raising the demand impugned.

Admittedly, the order passed by the Superintending Mining Engineer is open to appeal under MMCR, 1986 / MMCR, 2017.

No reason has been indicated in the writ petition for bypassing the said remedy available under the Rules. The submissions made that as the application for renewal has not been dealt with by the respondents, the petition for the said purpose is maintainable, also have no substance, inasmuch as, once the order cancelling the original lease deed has been passed, no question of renewal of a cancelled lease deed would arise and the petitioner would first have to question the validity of the cancellation and if restored, seek its renewal.

In view of the above discussion, no case for interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India in the present matter bypassing the available alternative remedy under the Rules is made out.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.