1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3268/2005 (Giriraj Gujar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of order : 20.11.2007 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Vikas Balia, for the petitioner. Mr.O.P.Boob, Addl.G.A. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against the impugned orders Annex. 3 dated 14.02.1997, Annex. 7 dated. 21.7.1997 and Annex. 20 dated. 12.05.2005 passed by the Mining Engineer, Rajsamand; Addl. Director (Mines), Udaipur and Deputy Secretary, Mines Department, Government of Rajasthan refusing to renew the mining lease granted to the petitioner vide Annex. 1 on 12.3.1986. The ground given for refusing the renewal is that the petitioner did not obtain 'No Objection' from the Khatedar, Nathdwara, temple Board for obtaining surface rights for doing the necessary mining work in the area allotted to him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vikas Balia relies upon the circular Annex. 4 dated 29.8.2005 which reads as under:- “H.RENEWAL 2 H.1 : Copy of the letter No. F.14(29) Mines/Gr II/95 dated 15.11.95 received from Spl.Secretary, Mines & Energy Government of Rajasthan, Mines Department, Jaipur address to the Director Mines & Geology Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, UDAIPUR. Sub : Grant and renewal of mining lease over khatedari and other private lands under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. The Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1986 do not specifically provided that where the land does not belong to the State Government Mining lease would be granted only to the owner of such land or to the person who obtain and produces consent of the land owner. That State Government after considering the provisions or Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 as contained in rule 22(3) (h)and after due deliberations has decided that in the case of minor minerals every application for grant or renewal of a mining lease shall be accompanied by a statement in writing that the applicant has, where the land is not owned by him, obtained surface rights over the area or has obtained the consent of the owner for starting mining operations provided that no such statement shall be necessary where the land is owned by the Government. 3 Provided also that no further consent would be required in the case of renewal where consent has already been obtained during grant of lease.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the “No Dues Certificate” from the Mining Department was obtained, the second ground stated in Annex 3, the impugned order, did not survive and the other objection relating to “No Objection Certificate” from Khatedar also could not stand in the way of the petitioner in view of department's own circular quoted above which was binding on the respondents and, therefore, the refusal to renew the mining lease of the petitioner was unjustified and illegal. Learned Government Advocate submitted that in view of the said circular of the departments which is binding on the departmental authorities themselves, the refusal to renew the mining lease could not be sustained. This Court also finds no other ground from the pleadings of the respondents on the basis of which the renewal of the mining lease in question could be refused to the petitioner. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order Annex. 3 dated. 14.2.1997, Annex. 7 dated 4 21.7.1997 and Annex. 20 dated 12.5.2005 are quashed and the respondents are directed to renew the mining lease of the petitioner within a period of two months from today. It is however made clear that this order will not come in the way of any dispute, if any, between the petitioner and the Khatedar, the Nathdwara Temple Board. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J. Item no. 17 Bharti