Holding

Both applications by Respondent No.5 were premature; the three‑month period under Rule 19(1) is counted from receipt of sanction, Rule 56/57 do not apply to revoked leases, and the area became available for re‑grant only after the 15‑day notice, rendering the January application premature.

Summary

The dispute concerned a marble mining lease in Rajasthan where an earlier lease granted to Babula Modi was deemed revoked for failure to execute the formal lease deed within three months. Respondent No.5 applied for the same area on 20 October 1982 and again on 19 January 1983, both of which were rejected as premature. The Supreme Court held that under Rule 19(1) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977, the three‑month period must be counted from the date the applicant received the sanction, not from the date of grant, making the October application premature. The Court further held that Rule 56 and Rule 57 of the 1977 Rules do not apply to areas where the lease has been revoked under Rule 19, and that an administrative order fixing a 15‑day notice period is required before the area becomes available for re‑grant. Consequently, the January 1983 application was also premature because the 15‑day notice period had not elapsed. The Supreme Court set aside the Central Government’s order and the High Court judgments and restored the State Government’s order granting the lease to the appellant.

Issues considered

Whether the application dated 20 October 1982 by Respondent No.5 was premature.
Whether the application dated 19 January 1983 by Respondent No.5 was premature.
From which date the three‑month period for execution of a formal lease under Rule 19(1) should be computed.
Whether Rule 56 and Rule 57 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 are applicable to areas where a lease has been deemed revoked under Rule 19.
Whether an administrative order fixing a notice period is required before a revoked area becomes available for re‑grant.

Legislation cited

Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957s. 30

Subjects

mining leaserevocationpremature applicationRule 19Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rulesre‑grantadministrative ordercircular 1976deemed revocation

Judgment

A AJIT SINGH
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

NOVEMBER 3, 1995

B [S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977-'Rules 19( 1), 56,
57, 59(1)'-Time for extension of lease-Relevant date for counting three
months-Held, it has to be reckoned from date of receipt of sanction and not
C from date of grant of lease.

Rules 56, 57, 59( 1}-Availability of land for regrant-Entry in the
register of lease-Held, not applicable in cases of revocation of lease.

Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959-Circular
D under-Situation as' to deemed revocation-Availability of regrant-Con-
tinued to apply even after the Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1977 which
are silent on the issue-Held such administrative order contained in the
circular not inconsistem with Rules-Hence, permissible.

A mining lease for marble in respect of 7500 sq. mts. in Rajasthan
E granted in favour of one 'R' in 1976 for 15 years was cancelled in 1979 .
One 'B' applied for grant of mining lease for an area of 10.000 sq.mts. and
he was granted an area of 7570 sq. mts. including a part of the area covered
by the mining lease granted to 'R'. Since, he failed to execute a formal lease
agreement in Form No. 8 within the period prescribed under the Rajasthan
F Minor Mineral Concession Rules, by virtue of Rule 19 thereof, the order
for grant of mining lease stood revoked. The order of revocation was issued
as per circular issued under Non-Principal Mineral Concession Rules,
1959.

Respondent No. 5 filed an application dated October 20, 1982 in
G respect of the same area. However, the application was rejected by the
Mining Engineer on the ground that the area was not available for grant.
He filed another application on January 19, 1983 and the Appellant also
filed an application on January 20, 1983 in respect of 22,500 sq. mts. The
Mining Engineer granted the lease in respect of 10,173 sq. mts. in favour
H of the appellant the lease was registered. The second application by
750 ....
AJIT SINGH v. U.0.1. 751

Respondent No. 5 was rejected on the ground that it was pre-mature. A
Respondent No. 5 filed two appeals against the orders whereby his
applications were rejected. The appeals were dismissed by the Additional
Director, Mines. The appeal against this order was partly allowed by the
State Government. The Revision filed by Respondent No. 5 was allowed by
the Central Government. The Central Government held that the grant of. B
mining lease in favour of 'B' stood revoked on October 12, 1982 when the
period of three months for the execution of the lease deed lapsed and the
first application by the Respondent No. 5 on October 20, 1982 could not
be rejected on the ground that the area was not available for regrant. The
Central Government did not go into the question as to whether the second C
application submitted by Respondent No. 5 was premature. The Writ
Petition filed by Appellant against the order of Central Government was
dismissed by Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court. The Writ Appeal
was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Before this Court, the question raised was whether the first applica- D
tion and the second application submitted by Respondent No. 5 were
premature.

The appellant contended that the relevant date for counting the
period of three months for the purpose of execution of a formal lease E
agreement has to be counted from the date of receipt of the sanction of the
mining lease by the applicant and that the procedure of notifying the land
for regrant under Rules 56 and 57 should be applied in all cases where
lease is to be regranted.

Allowing the Appeal, this Court F

HELD : 1. In view of the clear language used in sub-rule (1) of Rule
19 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977, the relevant
date for counting the period of three months for the purpose of execution
of a formal lease agreement has to be counted from the date of the receipt G
of the sanction of mining lease by the applicant. The first application dated
20.10.1982 submitted by the Respondent No. 5 was, therefore, premature
and was rightly rejected by the Mining Engineer. (756-F, 757-FJ

2. Rule 56 of the 1977 Rules has no application in the present case
and the application dated 19.1.83 submitted by Respondent No. 5 cannot H
752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A be said to be pre-mature on the basis of the provisions of Rule 56. [760-F]
3. Since the 1977 Rules are silent as to the provisions when the area
is available for regrant, it would be permissible to issue an administrative
order fixing the date on which the area in respect of which a grant had
been made and which grant stands revoked under Rule 19(1) on account
B of failure on the part of the application to execute a formal lease deed
within the prescribed period of three months, would be available for
regrant. Such an administrative order would be permissible since it would
not be inconsistent with the Rules. [762-H, 763-A]

4. Even though the circular dated December 10, 1976 in re.spec! of
c applications for lease of mining of minerals or lease of rent-cum-royalty
was issued by the Directorate, Mines and Minerology Department, Govern·
ment of Rajasthan under the Non-Principal Mineral Concessions Rules,
1959, the guidelines contained in paragraph 4 of the said circular were
being followed after the coming into force of 1977 Rules. [762-C]
D
5. The application dated 19.1.1983 submitted by Respondent No. 5
before the expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of the order dated
4.1.1983 has, therefore, to be considered as pre-mature with regard to the
area covered by the area for which mining lease had been earlier granted
E to 'B'. [763-DJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9784 of
1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.7.94 of the Rajasthan High
F Court in D.S. Civil Special Appeal No. 167 of 1991.

Arun J aitley, A. Mariarputham, Ms. Arona Mathur for Arputham
Aruna & Co. for the Appellant.

V.M. Tarkunde, B.D. Sharma, Aruneshwar Gupta, A.K. Sharma and
G P. Narasimhan for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.C. AGRAWAL, J. Leave granted.

H We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
AllTSINGHv. U.0.l.!S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 753

....._ This appeal relates to grant of mining lease in respect of a n1inor A
n1incral, viz. marhlc, under the provisions of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1977 Rules').

The facts, in brief, arc as follows :
B
One Rajesh Vardia was granted a mining lease for marble in respect
of an area covering 7500 sq. 1nts. near village Tripura Sundari in Banswara
District in the State of Rajaslhan. The said lease was granted for a period
of 15 years from January 2, J976 but it was cancelled by order dated
October 12, 1979. One Babula! Modi Submitted an application for grant
of mining lease for an area of 10,000 sq. mts. on December 16, 1.981. c
Babula! Modi was granted a lease in respect of 7570 sq. mts. including a
part of the area covered by the mining lease granted to Rajesh Vardia, by
order dated July 12, 1982. Babula! Modi failed to execute a formal lease
agreement in Form No. 8 within the period prescribed under the 1977
Rules and by virtue of Ruic 19 of the 1977 Rules the order for b'fant of D
mining lease stood revoked. Babula! Gupta, respondent No. 1 herein, filed
an application dated October 20, 1982 for grant of lease in respect of an
area which was overlapping the area held by Rajesh Vardia and sub-
sequently granted to Babula! Modi. The said application of respondent No.
5 was rejected by the Mining Engineer, Udaipur, by order dated February
24, 1983 on the ground that the area for which lease was sought was not E
available for grant. Respondent No. 5 filed another application for grant
of mining lease for the same area on January 19, 1983. Ajit Singh, appel-
lant herein, also filed an application on January 20, 1983 for grant of mining
lease in respect of an area covering 22, 500 sq. m!s. By order dated .July
26, 1983 the Mining Enginccr, UUaipur granted mining lease in rcspL.cl of F
an area covering 10,173 sq. m!s. out of the area of 22,500 sq. mts. for which
the appellant had submitted the application and in pursuance of the said
order the appellant obtained the mining lease on August 10, 1983 which
\Vas registered on August 18, 1983. The second application of respondent
No. 5 dated January 10, 1983 was rejected by the Mining Engineer,
Udaipur, by order dated April 29, 1983 on the ground that it was pre-ma- G
lure. Respondent No. 5 liled two appeals against the orders dated February
24, 1983 and April 29, 1983 whereby the applications of the respondent No.
5 dated October 20, 1982 and January 19, 1983 were rejected. The said
appeal were dismissed by the Additional Director, Mines, Udaipur by
order dated August 12, 1983. The appeal filed by respondent No. 5 against H
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f1995) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A the said order of the Additional Director, Mines, Udaipur was partly
allowetl by the State Government of Rajasthan by order dated .July 3, 1984
whereby mining lease was grantctl in favour of the appellant and it was
tlirected that the remaining area other than that granted to the appellant
should be granted in favour of respontlent No. 5. Respondent No. 5
preferred a revision application against the order of the State Government
B
dated July 3, 1984 before the Central Government under Section 30 of the
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. The said
revision application of respontlent No. 5 was allowetl by the Central
Government by order dated March 12; 1987. The Central Government held
that the grant of mining lease in favour of Babula! Modi stood revoked on
c October 12, 1982 when the period of three months for the execution of the
lease deed lapsetl and the first application dated October 20, 1982 sub-
mitted by respondent No. 5 could not be rejected on the ground that the
area was not available for grant. The Central Government set aside the
order granting the mining lease to the appellant as well as the order dated
D February 24, 1983 passed by the Mining Engineer, Udaipur, and the order
dated August 12, 1983 passed by the Additional Director, Mines and order
dated July 3, 1982 passed by the State Government and remanded the
matter to the State Government for passing appropriate order on the
application dated October 20, 1982 submitted by respondent No. 5 on
merits. The Central Government did not go into the question as to whether
E the second application datetl January 19, 1983 submitted by respondent
No. 5 was pre-mature. The appellant filed a writ petition (writ petition No.
1064 of 1987) in the Rajasthan High Court wherein he challengetl the
legality and validity of the order dated March 12, 1987 passed by the
Central Government. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned
F single Judge hy judgment tlated April 4, 1991. The Special Appeal (D.B.
Civil Special Appeal No. 167 of 1991) filed by the appellant against the
judgment of the learned single Judge has been dismissed by the Division
Bench of the High Court by concurring judgments (per V.S. Kokje and
R.R. Yadav, JJ.).

G Two questions broadly arise for consideration in this appeal, viz. (i)
whether the first application dated October 20, 1982 submitted by respon-
dent No. 5 was premature; and (ii) whether the second application dated
January 19, 1983 submitted by respondent No. 5 was pre-mature.

H For answering the first question, it is necessary to take note of Rule

........
1VITSINGH v. U.O.l. [S.C. AGRAWAL• .!.] 755

19(1) of the 1977 Rules which provided as follows : A

"19. Execution of lease. - (1) Where a lease has been granted or
renewed under these rules, the formal lease in Form No. 8 shall
be executed within three months from the date of receipt of the
sanction by the applicant and if no such formal lease is executed
within the aforesaid period, the order granting the lease shall be B
deemed to have been revoked. The competent authority shall sign
the agreement on behalf of the Government of R~jasthan as
required under Article 229 of the Constitution of India :

"Provided that where the State Government or any officer C
authorised by the State Government to grant lease on its behalf is
satisfied that there are sufficient reasons to believe that the grantee
is not responsible for the delay in the execution of the formal lease,
the State Government or that officer as the case may. be, may
permit the execution of formal lease within a reasonable time after
the expiry of the aforesaid period of three months." D
A perusal of the said provisions shows that after the grant of.the
mining lease a formal lease is required to be executed within three n1onths
from the dale of the receipt of the sanction by the applicant and if no such
formal lease is executed within the said period, the order grating the lease
E
has to be deemed to have been revoked. In the proviso to sub-rule (1) of
Rule 19 provision is made that the State Government or any officer
authorised by the State Government to grant lease on its behalf, may permit
execution of formal lease within a reasonable time after the expiry of the
aforesaid period of three months, if the Slate Government or such officer
is satisfied that there are sufficient reasons to beli~ve that the grantee is F
not responsible for the delay in the execution of the formal lease. In the
present case, the applicability of the proviso does not arise and only the
main part of sub-rule (1) of Rule 19 has to be considered.

The period of three months has to be counted from the date of
receipt of the sanction by tr~ applicant and not from the date of the grant G
of mining lease. The Cent"' Government, in passing the order dated
March 12, 1987, has erroneously proceeded on the basis that the period of
three months has to be counted from the date of grant of lease, i.e., .July
12, 1982 and on that basis the Central Government has held that the
deemed revocation would be operative on October 12, 1982. The Central H
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11995] SUPP. 4S.C.R.

A Government has also expressed the view that for the purpose of revocation
of the grant under Ruic 19 it is not necessary to pass any formal order by
the State Government since deemed revocation would take place by opera-
1
tion of law after the expiry of the period of three months prescribed in
Rule 19.

B In the High Court one of the learned Judges (V.S. Kokje J.) has
taken note of the fact that the intimation of the order dated July 12, 1982
regarding grant of mining lease was received by respondent No.5 on AU!,'llSt
16, 1982 and the period of three months, when counted from August 16,
1982 expired on November 15, 1982 and, therefore, the application dated
c October 20, 1982 submitted by respondent No. 5 was premature. The other
leaned Judge (R.R. Yadav .I.) while agreeing that the period of three
months prescribed under Rule 19 has to be counted from the date of the
receipt of the order granting sanction of the lease, was not inclined to
disturb the order passed by the Central Government for the reason that
D the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitu-
tion, would not permit the appellant to place before the Court fresh
material, namely, Annexure 1-A to the writ petition, which showed that the
letter dated July 12, 1982 granting the mining lease was received by Babula!
Modi on August 16, 1982. According to Yadav J. since the said document
was not placed before any of the tribunals and the matter is to be decided
E by the State Government afresh after remand it would not be proper to
make further comments on the same regarding its credibility and reliability.

In view of the clear language used in sub-rule (1) of Ruic 19, the
relevant date for counting the period of three months for the purpose of
F execution of a formal lease agrccn1cnl has to be counted fron1 the date of
the receipt of the sanction of the mining lease by the applicant. The case
of the appellant is that the sanction dated .I uly 12, 1982 for grant of mining
lease on the application of Babula! Modi was received by him on August
16, 1982. It is no doubt true that this fact was not brought out in the
proceedings before the State Government or the Central Government. The
G Central Go.vcrnment did nol consider it necessary to go into the question
of the date of receipt of the sanction by Babula! Modi because it has
proceeded on the basis that the period of three months has to be counted
from the dale of the grant of sanction of lease, i.e., July 12, 1982. The fact
that this fact was brought out, for the first time, by the appellant in the writ
H petition, by filing the document Annexure l-A, could not stand in the way
-~
AllTSINGH v. U.0.1. [S.C. AGRAWAL, .I.] 757

of the High Court considering the said document and deciding \Vhethcr on A
the basis or the said document the said lcner dated July 12, 1982 was
received by Babula) Modi on August 16, 1982. Yadav .I. has refused to take
note of the said document though it had been placed on record with the
writ petition. An additional affidavit dated September 1.2, 1995 has been
filed hy the appellant in this Court and a copy of the letter dated December
B
13, 1982 from the Assistant Mining Engineer to the Mining Engineer,
Udaipur has been annexed as Annexure I to the said affidavit. In the said
letter it is slated that the letter dated .July 12, 1982 regarding grant of lease
in favour of Babula! Modi was sent to the said party by registered A.D.
dated July 30, 1982 requesting him to get the lease deed executed and the
said letter was received by Babula! Modi on August 16, 1982 and that the c
period of three months had expired on November 1.5, 1982 and that the
party had so far not completed the formalities for the execution of the lease
deed. Along with the said affidavit a copy of the relevant entry in the
despatch register has also been filed which shows that the letter No. ML
126/81 regarding grant of mining lease was sent to Babula! Modi vide entry D
no. 1143 dated July 30, 1982 in the Dispatch Register and that it was
actually sent by registered post on August 2, 1982. There is no reason to
doubt the authenticity of these documents which have been filed by the
appellant. We, therefore, proceed on the basis that the letter dated July
12, 1982 regarding grant of mining lease was received by Babula! Modi on
August 16, 1982 and the period of three months for the execution of the E
formal lease, as required by Rule 19(1), expired on November 15, 1982 and
the grant of mining lease in favour of Babula! Modi would be deemed to
have heen revoked only on November 15, 1982. The first application dated
October 20, 1982 submitted by respondent No. 5 was, therefore, pre-ma-
ture and was rightly rejected hy the Mining Engineer hy his order dated F
February 24, 1983.

We may now come to the question whether the second application
dated .January 19, 1983 submitted by respondent No. 5 was pre-mature. The
answer to this question would depend upon the question whether on
January 19, 1983 the area in question was available for grant. The appellant G
has placed reliance on the provisions of Rules 56 and 57 of the 1977 Rules
in this regard. The said Rules provide as under :

"Rule 56. Availability of the areas for re-grant to be signified by
an entry in the register for mining lease and rent-cum-royalty lease: H
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A No area \vhich was previously held under mining lease or rcnt-
curn-royalty lease shall he treated as available for re-grant unless
an entry to this effect has been made in the register nf n1ining lease
or rent-cum-royalty lease and 15 days have elapsed from the <late
of such enlry. The aforesaid entry in the register of 1nining lease
shall be made at least 3 months before the dale of expiry of original
B lease or within 15 days from the receipt of determination order,
as the ease may be. In case of rent-cum-royalty lease the entry shall
be made on the date of the notification under rule 27(4). In the
case of mining lease for area of 1 sq. km. or above the date from
which it shall be treated as available for re-grant shall be notified
c in the Rajasthan Gazette at least 30 days in adv-ance. The notifica-
tion shall mention the relevant rule auction which the grant shall
be made either by auction or by application.

Note : (a) for the purposes of this rule, the register required
to be maintained under rules 10(2) and 24(2) shall be deemed to
D be the register for entry under this rule.

(b) In case of a renewal application for mining lease the entry in
the said register shall be made within 15 days of the rejection of
renewal application.
E Rule 57. Premature application.-Application for grant of mining
lease in respect of areas which have been previously held under a
mining lease but in respect of which there is no entry in the register
as provided for in the foregoing rule, shall be deemed to be
premature and shall be disposed of by the Government accordingly
F an<l the application fee paid shall be rcfun<le<l."

The Central Government has expressed the view that Rule 56 is not
applicable in this case inasmuch as the said rule governs declaring an area
available for grant if held under a mining lease and an area cannot be held
under a n1ining lease unless the mining lease is executed and the possession
G is taken by the person to whom the area is granted under the mining lease.
The learned single .I udge appears to have proceeded on an erroneous
impression that the Central Government has held that the provisions of
Rule 56 of the Rules have not been complied with in the present case. Both
the learned Judges on the Division Bench of the High Court have, however,
H held that Rule 56 has no application in a case where the person to whom

.......
ATIT SINGHv. U.0.1. [S.C. AGRAWAL.J.J 759

the lease has been granted fails to execute a formal lease under Rule 19 A
and there is deemed revocation of sanction. Yadav J. has, ho\vever, held
that no extract of entry from the register of mining leases has been filed
to show the dale on which the cnlry in the said register was made and that
the alleged admission that an entry \Vas also n1a<le in the register of mining
leases maintained at the office of Mining Engineer, Udaipur \Vas not
B
sufficient to confer right on the appellant to obtain the lease of the disputed
mining area on the basis of his application dated January 20, 1983 while
respondent No. 5 had also moved an application for grant of the said area
on January 19, 1983. According to lhe learned Judge, if the entry was made
in the register on January 4, 1983, in pursuance of order dated January 4,
1983 then the application of respondent No. 5 dated January 19, 1983 and c
the application of the appellant dated .January 20, 1983 would be mature
and that if the entry in the register was made on any subsequent date, then
it is to be decided by the State Government as to whether these two
applications were mature of pre-mature.
D
Shri Arnn Jaitely, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant, has submitted that Rule 56 serves a useful purpose inasmuch as
it curbs corruption and favouritism by fixing the date on which a particular
area is available for grant of mining lease and thereby enables all applicants
to have an equal opportunity of submitting their applications for grant of
lease. The submission of Shri J aitely is that keeping in view the said object E
underlying Rule 56, it should be applied in all cases where lease is to be
rcgranted including cases where the grant of a lease has been revoked
under Rule 19 on the ground of failure on the part of the applicant to
execute the formal lease deed within the prescribed period. Shri .lailely has
urged that otherwise applicants would try to obtain secret inforn1ation from F
the office about the dates of dispatch and receipt of the letter regarding
grant of sanction and this would encourage corruption. The said contention
of Shri Jaitley, though attractive, cannot be accepted. Rule 56 refers to
regrant of a mining lease in respect of an area which was previously held
under a mining lease. In a case where an order for grant of mining lease
has been passed but no formal lease deed is executed by the applicant and G
the grant stands revoked under Rule 19(1) of the 1977 Rules, it cannot be
said that the area was previously held under a mining lease. Merely because
there is a practice of making an entry in the register of mining lease
maintained under Rule 10 of 1977 Rules in respect of grant of mining lease
which stands revoked, it cannot be held that Rule 56 is applicable. H

-·
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I19951SUPP.4 S.C.R.

A Shri Jailcly has also placed reliance on Rule 57 which prescribes that
an application for grant of mining lease in respect of areas \vhich have been
previously hel<l under a mining lease but in respect of whjch there is no
entry in the register has to be treated as pre-mature. Rule 57, in our
opinion, also talks of areas previously held under a n1ining lease and covers
the same field as that covered by Rule 56. Ruic 57 does not widen the
B
scope of Rule 56 and it cannol be construed to mean thal Rule 56 is
applicable in cases where mining lease has been sancLioned bul no formal
lease dead has been executed and as a result the order granting the mining
lease stands revoked under Rule 19(1).

c Jn this context, it may be mentioned that in Lhe Rajaslhan Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 this lacuna has been removed and in Rule
59(1) of the 1986 Rules, which contains provisions similar to those that
contained Rule 56 of the 1977 Rules, it has been provided :

"No area which has been previously held under a mining lease or
D in respect of which order of grant has been made but the same has
been revoked shall be treated as available for regrant unless an
entry to this effect has been made in the register of mining lease,
the area has been notified as 'free· area on the notice board of
Mining Engineer/Assistant Mining Engineer and 15 days have
E elapsed from the date of such notification and entry in the register."

(emphasis supplied)

It must, therefore, be held Lhat Rule 56 of the 1977 Rules has no
application in the present case and the application dated January 19, 1983
F sub1niltt..:<l by respondent No. 5 cannot be sai<l to be pre-1nature on the
basis of the provisions of Rule 56.

The non-applicability of Rule 56 of the 1977 Rules would mean that
there is no provision in the 1977 Rules for specifying the date on which an
area in respect of which the grant of mining lease stands revoked under
G Rule 19(1) would be available for regrant. Yadav .I. has expressed the view
under Rule 19 of the 1977 Rules the area would be available for rcgrant
immediately after the expiry of three months which is to be computed froni
the date of receipt of the sanction by the application and that no formal
order of revocation of the sanction is required. It is no doubt true that in
H view of the expression 'deemed revocation' in Rule 19(1) of the 1977 Rules,

·-
AJITSINGH 1·. U.0.1. [S.C.AGRAWAL,.1.J 761

revocation of the sanction is automatic on the expiry of the period of three A
months prescribed under Ruic 19(1) except in cases where the period for
execution of mining lease is extended under the proviso to suh- rule (I) of
I
Ruic 19. Such a revocation has two consequences. In the first place it
tenninates the right of the grantee of a mining lease flowing fro111 such
grant. Secondly it enables anothCr person to obtain mining lease in respect
B
of the area covered by the grant which stands revoked. The first conse-
quence is confined lo the applicant who was granted the mining lease and
whose grant stands revoked. The other consequence involves third parties
who wish to apply for grant of mining lease in respect of the area covered
by the grant which stands revoked.
c
So far as the applicant in whose favour the grant of mining lease was
made which grant stands revoked under Rule 19(1), the revocation takes
effect from the date when the period of three months prescribed under
Rule 19(1) or the extended period under the proviso to Rule 19(1) expires
and the right that had accrued to the said applicant on the basis of the D
grant comes to an end. But in respect of third parties the. matter regarding
availability of the area in question for regrant cannot be allowed to rest on
the internal communication between the concerned officials of the State
Government and the. applicant for the mining· [case the relevant facts
regarding which would not be known to public and arc only contained in
the office files. Since grant or mining lea•e involves grant of a privilege by E
the State, every applicant for such mining lease must have an equal
opportunity lo apply for the same. This can be achieved only if a public
notice is issued about the availability of the area for rcgrant so that an
intending applicant knows about the availability of the area for grant and
r..:an suhn1it his t1pplicatinn for lhitl purp0:;1;;.
F
It <tppears that the Directorate, Mines and Mineralogy Department,
Government of Rajasthan has issued a circular dated December 10, 1976
in respect of applications for lease of mining of mineral' or lease of
rent-cum-royalty. In paragraph 4 of the said circular, it is stated :
G
"4. Who has hecn granted lease of mining of rent-cum- royalty
under Non-Principal Minerals Concession Rule, 1959 and he docs
not cxcrute contract in the prescribed time cts per Rules then on
expiry of prescrihcJ pcrio<l for execution of contract, the order of
sanction deemed to be considered as revoked and that area should H
'
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A be notified as free zone according to Rules is appropriate time i.e.
if the area is more than one mile than it should be published in
the gazette and if the area is less than one mile then it should be
notified on the Notice Board of the office for the period of 15
days."

B Paragraph .4 of the said Circular envisages a situation where grant of
the lease stands revoked on account of failure on the part of the applicant
to whom lease has been granted lo execute formal lease deed as per the
Rules and it requires that the area should be notified as free zone accord-
ing to Rules in appropriate tin1e and if the area is more than one mile than
C it should be published in the gazette <illd if it is less than one mile, it should
be notified on the notice board of the office for 15 days. It is no doubt true
that the said circular was issued under Non- Principal Minerals Concession
Rules, 1959 prior to the 1977 Rules, but the guide lines contained in
paragraph 4 of the said Circular appear to have been followed even after
the coming into force of the 1977 Rules because after the revocation of the
D sanction of mining lease for marble in area 150 x 50 meters in favour of
Rajesh Vardia a notice dated October 18, 1979 was issued declaring the
said area as a vacant area after 15 days from the date of issue of the said
notice excluding the date of issue. As regards the area in question in the
present case, the following office order was issued by the Mines Engineer,
E Udaipur on .January 4, 1983 :

"That Shri Babula! Modi S/o. Shri Ganga Lal r/o Ratarbagh was
sanctioned minii;ig lease near village Tripuratu District Banswara
vide office order No. Udaipur/illegible/MR/ML 23182/2495 dated
12.7.82 for 10/5 years. The applicant has not completed necessary
F formalities for execution of contract within the fixed period of
three months for execution of contract.

Therefore the said sanction order dated 12. 7.82 is revoked and
the said area is declared for re-allocation after 15 days excluding
the day of publication of this order".
G
We have not been shown any provision in the 1977 Rules which
prescribes that in a case where the grant of a mining lease stands revoked
under Rule 19(1) of the 1977 Rules, the area is available for rcgrant
immediately after such deemed revocation. The 1977 Rules arc silent on
H this aspect. Jt would, therefore, be permissible to issue an administrative
AIJTSINGH v. u.o.1.1s.c. AGRAWAL, J.] 763

order fixing the date on which the area in respect of which a grant had A
been made and which grant stands revoked under Rule 19(1) on account
of failure on the part of the applicant to execute a formal lease deed within
the prescribed period of three months, would be available for regrant. Such
an ad1ninistrative order would be permissible since it would not be incon-
sistent with the Rules. The order dated January 4, .1983 is such an ad-
B
n1inistralivc order. It cannot be considered to be in consistent \Vith the 1977
Rules and effect can be given to the said order. The said order when it
says that 'the sanction order dated July 12, 1982 is revoked' only means
that the said sanction order stands revoked on the expiry of the period
prescribed for the execution of a formal lease deed under Rule 1991 of the
1977 Rules. No fault can be found in the said order dated January 4, 1983 c
when it says that 'the area is available for re-allotment after 15 days
excluding the day of publication of the said order. This would mean that
the area became available for regrant only on January 20, 1983. The
application dated January 19, 1983 submitted by respondent No. 5 before
the expiry of 15 days from the day of publication of the order dated January D
4, 1983 has, therefore, to be considered as pre-mature with regard to the
area covered by the area for which mining lease had been earlier granted
to Babula! Modi.

Since we have come to the conclusion that the applications dated
October 20, 1982 and January 19, 1983 submitted by respondent No. 5 were E
both pre-mature the same were liable to be rejected and the order of the
Central Government dated March 18, 1987 as well as judgment dated April
4, 1991 of the learned Single Judge and the impugned judgment of the
Division Bench of the High Court dated July 18, 1994 cannot be upheld
and have to be set aside. The order of the State Government dated July 3,
F
1984 is restored.

In the result the appeal is allowed and the order dated March 18,
1987 passed by the Central Government, the judgment dated April 4, 1991
passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1064 of 1987 and
the judgment dated July 18, 1984 passed by the Division Bench in D.B. G
Special Appeal No. 167 of 1991 are set aside and the order dated July 3,
1984 passed by the State Government is restored. In the circumstances, the
parties are left to bear their own costs.

Y.M. Appeal allowed.