$~SB-2-3 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI REVIEW PET. 162/2014 & CM No.6249/2014 in + LPA 205/2008 TIFFINS BARYTES ASBESTOS AND PAINTS LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. K. Varghese, Mr. V. Shyamohan and Ms. Saumya Sharma, Advs. for Review Petitioner versus UOI AND ANR. ...... Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC for R-1 Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, , CGSC REVIEW PET. 163/2014 & CM No.6251/2014 in + LPA 206/2008 TIFFINS BARYTES ASBESTOS AND PAINTS LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. K. Varghese, Mr. V. Shyamohan and Ms. Saumya Sharma, Advs. for Review Petitioner versus UOI AND ANR. ...... Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA LPA Nos.205 & 206/2008 page 1 of 4 O R D E R % 04.11.2016 Review Petition Nos.162/2014, 163/2014 and CM No.6249/2014 & CM No. 6251/2014 1. By these applications, the applicants seek review of the order dated 30th April, 2008 upholding the dismissal of the W.P.(C) No.2356/1990 of the Single Judge by the order dated 7th January, 2008. 2. It appears that the appellant was granted mining lease in respect of certain land in Andhra Pradesh for 20 years from 1941 to 1961 which was renewed for a further period of 20 years in 1961 which expired in the year 1981. The appellant applied for a second renewal before respondent no.2. On 25th March, 1983, the respondent no. 2 rejected an application for renewal of the mining lease against which a revision was filed which was rejected by the order dated 28th September, 1984 by the competent authority against which W.P.(C) 2018/1985 was filed by the review petitioner. 3. The review petitioner had also been granted mining lease for Barytes originally in 1934 for 20 years which was renewed for a further period of 20 years in 1961. The review petitioner applied for 2nd renewal in 1978. Upon successfully contesting a revision petition before the Central Government, the Central Government through an order dated 1st November, 1980 directed the state government to pass LPA Nos.205 & 206/2008 page 2 of 4 final speaking order. Thereafter the state government through an order dated 29th April, 1983 granted the second renewal to the review petitioner of only 12.43 acres out of 655.51 acres for the reason the Indian Bureau of Mines had found that review petitioner had not worked the mines to full capacity. Thereafter the petitioner filed revision petition before the Central Government submitting that the allegations of the IBM were false and that it had invested amounts to develop the mines. The said revision petition was dismissed by an order dated 3rd August, 1984 against which the review petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No. 2356/1990. 4. These writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.2018/1985 & W.P.(C) No. 2356/1990 challenging the rejections dated 25th March, 1983 and 3rd August, 1984 respectively were heard together and were dismissed by a common order dated 7th January, 2008 which order has been upheld by this court on 30th April, 2008 for reasons noted in paras 3.1 to 3.4 of the order under review. 5. We are informed by learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner assailed the order dated 30th April, 2008 in the LPA No. 206/2008 by way of Special Leave Petition No. 16901/2008 which was listed on 9th July, 2013 before the Supreme Court of India when a statement was made that the petitioner did not want to pursue the petition and the same was dismissed as not pressed. 6. The same order passed in the connected appeal being LPA No. LPA Nos.205 & 206/2008 page 3 of 4 205/2008 was challenged by way of SLP 16896/2008 which was dismissed by the Supreme Court by the order dated 28th July, 2008 in view of the fact that rights to mine are being granted after participation in a public auction. 7. We are also informed that since the filing of the Letters Patent Appeal, the Mine and Minerals Regulation & Development Act, 1957 stands amended with effect from 2015 and rights to mine are being auctioned. In any case, no mining leases are being renewed twice. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the rights of the applicant would subsist till the date the Act was amended. This would not impact the result of the case in view of the above orders. In our view, the present review petitions and applications are completely misconceived and misdirected. The same are dismissed. GITA MITTAL, J J.R. MIDHA, J NOVEMBER 04, 2016/kr LPA Nos.205 & 206/2008 page 4 of 4