1 S/1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6719/2006. Hindustan Zinc Limited, Udaipur Vs. State & Ors. ... Date of Order :: 23rd October 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. M.S. Singhvi ] Mr. Manish Patel ], for the petitioner. Mr. Rishi Vaishnav, Government Counsel, for the respondents. ..... BY THE COURT: This writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 01.11.2006 (Annex.34) as passed by the State Government in its Mining Department declaring the mining lease bearing No. 6/1989 as granted in favour of the petitioner to have lapsed and at the same time revoking the renewal sanction orders dated 03.09.1992, 04.06.1993 and 29.08.2001. Shorn of unnecessary details, suffice is to notice that the lease in question was granted to the petitioner for the mineral rock phosphate near village Matoong, Tehsil Girva, District Udaipur and there had been installment renewals with modification of the lease areas. The impugned order aforesaid came to be passed by the State Government after serving a show cause notice on the petitioner for violation of Rule 37(1) (a)(b) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 ('MCR') and 2 Section 4A of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Rule 28 of MCR. The basic reason behind such show cause notice had been issuance of an advertisement by the petitioner that appeared in the newspaper Economic Times dated 29.04.2006 and that was taken to be an attempt on the part of the petitioner to assign, sublet or transfer in other manner the right or interest in the said mining lease; and to enter into arrangement or contract whereby the lessee would be directly or indirectly financed to a substantial extent and whereby the lessee's operations might be substantially controlled by any other person or body of persons. There had been other allegations also, of discontinuation of operation of the mining lease for a continuous period of more than two years, of the environmental clearance having not been produced, of execution of the agreement of original order and second installment of supplementary agreement having not been made with non-completion of the formalities like production of the approved mining plan etc. The reply as stated by the petitioner to the show cause notice was not found acceptable by the State Government and ultimately the lease was declared lapsed by the impugned order dated 01.11.2006; and hence the petitioner preferred this writ petition. 3 On 06.12.2006, the respondents were restrained in this writ petition from allotting the mining area in question to any other person and on 17.01.2008, after hearing the parties, this writ petition was admitted for consideration and was ordered to be placed for final disposal. On the matter being taken up for final disposal, learned counsel for the parties have made submissions essentially to the effect that the basic reason for the State Government not accepting the reply of the petitioner and passing the impugned order had been the petitioner’s issuing such advertisement whereby the Government found the petitioner attempting to enter into some arrangement with some other person or body of persons but now, with the petitioner having categorically stated its assurance that it would not directly or indirectly enter into any such dealing whereby its mining activities could be controlled in any manner by any other person, acting upon such assurance, the respondent State Government has agreed to reconsider the matter; and, upon completion of other formalities, to continue with the lease in question in accordance with law treating as if the order dated 01.11.2006 was never passed. The parties are at the understanding that the petitioners would not be entitled to seek any enlargement of time on the term period of the lease deed only on account of passing of the said order dated 01.11.2006 but then, the 4 mining lease would not be treated as lapsed and its renewal at present shall be governed by the sanction order dated 29.08.2001; and further extension/renewal after completion of the period of lease as per the said sanction order shall be governed by the statutory provisions in that regard. In view of the submissions so made, more or less in consensus by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears appropriate to annul the order dated 01.11.2006 (Annex.34) and to send the matter back to the State Government for reconsideration and passing the appropriate orders in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly; and the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/