1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15664/2010 Mafi Mandir Baijnathji Mahadevji Vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 29/11/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri P.S. Sharma for the petitioner. ****** This writ petition has been filed by Mafi Mandir Baijnathji Mahadevji through its Pujari Ram Kishore. It is contended that the Government has by relaxing Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 granted renewal of the lease to the respondent no.4 M/s. Associate Stone Industries, Ramganj Mandi, Kota. When the original lease was granted, the respondent no.4 did not undertake any mining operation and now by the impugned order dated 28.9.2010, the Government has renewed the lease by relaxing the conditions enumerated in Rule 17(1). It is contended that the land stands in the khatedari of the petitioner Mafi Mandir Baijnathji Mahadevji and therefore the government ought not to have continued / renewed the lease prior to production of consent from the khatedar concerned. Perusal of the renewal order dated 28.9.2010 reveals that although the order states that renewal for the period of 10 years i.e. from 1.10.2009 to 30.9.2019 is 2 being granted to the respondent no.4 in relaxation of the conditions enumerated in Rule 17(1) of the Rules of 1986, but at the same time, the order also puts certain conditions without fulfillment of which, the respondent no.4 has been required not to undertake mining operations. Condition no.1 thereof is that respondent no.4 would undertake mining operations only after obtaining the consent of the khatedar concerned duly registered. That takes care of the grievance of the petitioner. If the petitioner is still aggrieved and objects to the renewal of the mining lease, if it can satisfy the authorities that this was its khatedari land in which the mining operations are sought to be carried out, it may always refuse to give consent or otherwise approach the authorities to revoke the renewal. At this stage, in my considered view, it would be premature to interfere in the matter. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to take his remedy before the appropriate authority after making suitable representation in that behalf. The petition is disposed of however with the aforesaid liberty. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/-