9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to validity of Rule 21 and Rule 65-A of Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1986; Quashing of notification declaring marble policy of State Government; Direction for grant of lease of minor mineral in specific lands. Analysis: The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the validity of Rule 21 and Rule 65-A of the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1986, along with the notification declaring the marble policy of the State Government and seeking a lease of minor mineral in specific lands. The High Court dismissed the writ petition based on a previous decision. The appellant had applied for a mining lease for marble but the application was not processed, leading to the writ petition. The appellant argued that the State Government cannot frame rules contrary to the Mines & Minerals Act, specifically mentioning Section 15 and the limitations on enhancing royalty and dead rent within a four-year period. The appellant relied on a previous court decision to support this argument. The High Court referred to previous decisions and held that the Government can revise dead rent rates every five years, not exceeding the maximum limit specified in the Act. The appellant contended that the High Court's decisions were not in line with previous judgments and sought interference. The respondent argued that since no lease had been granted to the appellant, the rules could not be challenged. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had not been granted a lease yet, and the stage for fixing dead rent had not arisen. The Court emphasized that the appellant could file a fresh application following the marble policy's implementation. The Court declined to engage in an academic exercise regarding the rules' conformity and dismissed the appeals, stating that no costs were to be awarded. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing that the appellant had not been granted a lease yet, and the stage for determining dead rent had not arrived. The Court advised the appellant to file a fresh application following the marble policy's implementation and pursue the matter accordingly. The Court declined to issue any mandamus to process the appellant's application, stating that such actions could be taken when necessary.
|
