IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.686 of 2006. Smt. Yashoda Devi Vs. State & Others S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1537 of 2001. Basanti Devi Vs. State & Others S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1538 of 2001. Jagdish Vs. State & Others S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1539 of 2001. Jugal Kishore Vs. State & Others Date of Order ::: 02/09/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Prem Shanker Asopa, J. Mr. S.N. Kumawat, Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. K.K. Sharma and Mr. V.S. Gurjar, Counsel for the Respondents **** By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. Since, the common question of fact and law are involved in all these four writ petitions, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.686 of 2006. The petitioner in aforesaid writ petition has challenged the common order dated 17.12.2005 passed in revision petition, whereby the order of grant of license in favour of the petitioner by order dated 03.04.1998 has been set aside and the direction has been issued to the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur to decide the matter after hearing both the parties by keeping in view their priority, as per the Government Circular. 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1537 of 2001. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.03.2001 passed by the respondent No.2 and the grant of the order of sanctioning query license to the petitioner vide order dated 03.04.1998 may be reviewed/restored and the revision petition filed by the respondent No.3 may kindly be ordered to be dismissed. 3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1538 of 2001. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.03.2001 passed by the respondent No.2 and the grant of the order of sanctioning query license to the petitioner vide order dated 03.04.1998 may be reviewed/restored and the revision petition filed by the respondent No.3 may kindly be ordered to be dismissed. 4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1539 of 2001. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.03.2001 passed by the respondent No.2 and the grant of the order of sanctioning query license to the petitioner vide order dated 03.04.1998 may be reviewed/restored and the revision petition filed by the respondent No.3 may kindly be ordered to be dismissed. The order dated 29.03.2001 in aforesaid last three writ petitions i.e. 1537/2001, 1538/2001 and 1539/2001 has been passed by the Deputy Secretary in five revision petitions filed against the order of the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur dated 03.04.1998, whereby the respective petitioners have been granted query license and the same was set aside. The respective respondent No.3 filed revision petition before the State Government against the order dated 03.04.1998, whereby the petitioners have been granted query license and the same has been set aside vide order dated 29.03.2001 against which the present writ petitions have been filed. The leading facts are taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.686 of 2006 and the same are that the area in dispute is not situated in Sodo-ki-dhani, which was demarked in the year, 1961 and the plot Nos.582, 547 and 575 were carved out for which an applications were invited on 28.12.1983. During the pendency of the said applications, the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 came into force in 04.03.1986, therefore, a notification was issued on 21.06.1986, whereby it was notified that those who have applied under the Rules of 1977 of the Rajasthan Minor Concession Rules, 1986 may apply within a period of 15-days in Part on that of the Rules, 1986 and in case the said applications not received then an earlier application shall stand rejected. None of the applicant has applied as per the said notification dated 21.06.1986, therefore, their applications have been rejected. Subsequently, there was a litigation before ACJM Court, Jodhpur as well as revision before the Government. In revision, an order was passed on 11.01.1995 that the applications be decided after classifying and notifying the area, as per the present Rules, but at that time the Rules, 1986 were amended vide notification dated 12.08.1994, which were effective from 12.08.1984 according to which in case of demarketed old boundaries a classification was not necessary and the allotment was to be made as per the priority. However, on 27.03.1998 one letter was issued by the Deputy Secretary Mines that as regards the mines in question the new Rules be applied according to the said letter. In pursuance to the said letter the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur granted lease in favour of the non- petitioner No.2- present petitioner. Against the said order dated 03.04.1998, two revision petitions were filed by the revision-petitioner out of which the respondent No.3 as one of the applicant. In the said revision petition, the Deputy Secretary has decided that in the Government letter dated 27.03.1998, it was directed that in case the area in question is delineated earlier coming into force to the Rules, then the mining lease to be allotted, as per the priority, therefore, there was no need of re- delineating the area and ultimately the matter was remanded by the Deputy Secretary to the Mining Engineer as narrated above vide its letter dated 17.12.2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was rightly granted the lease dated 03.04.1998 as per the Rules and the Deputy Secretary has committed an error in remanding the matter to the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur to decide the application as per priority. The learned counsel for the respondents No.3 submits that there was no need of re-delineating the area and granting lease to the petitioner and further considering the case of the petitioner for grant of mining lease, therefore, the order dated 13.04.1998 is liable to be set aside. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case and considered the rival submissions made by the parties. I am of the view that there was no need of any re- delineating the area in question and the same was to be allotted on the basis of the priority as per pre delineation of the plot before coming into force of the Rules of 1986. I find no error in the judgment of the Deputy Secretary, therefore, all these writ petitions are dismissed. However, I direct the respondent Mining Engineer, Jodhpur to decide the priority as per the judgment of the Deputy Secretary within a period of one month from today, after hearing both the parties, till then the status-quo, as it exists today, shall be maintained. (Prem Shanker Asopa) J. ashok/