1. Heard Mr. Chaudhary, learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. Present petition is taken out against the impugned decision of the competent authority of cancelling the lease and of not considering the petitioner's application for renewal.
3. It is not in dispute that the petition preferred by the constituted attorney, who claims that because of ill-health of the petitioner, he is managing the affairs of the mining lease. It is also not in dispute that the mining lease granted to Smt. Harkhaben Ashokbhai Dabhi (i.e. petitioner) expired with effect from 28.10.2005.
4. As per the relevant provisions, the application for renewal has to be made 180 days before the date of the expiry of the lease. Therefore, in present case, the application was required to be made 180 days before 28.10.2005.
5. Not only the application was not made within the prescribed time limit, but such application was not made even until 28.10.2005 or immediately thereafter.
6. Instead, the application came to be made on 20.4.2006. It is pertinent that as per the record, the lease was cancelled in December, 1997, i.e. after delay of almost 12 months, however, according to the petitioner, royalty-passes were being issued and in view of the recommendation by the Collector and the said order was not implemented. It is not in dispute that the said order dated 9.12.1997 was not challenged by the petitioner.
7. When the petitioner made renewal application on 20.4.2006, the same came to be rejected by the concerned authority against the order dated 29.10.2010. Subsequently, the petitioner appears to have approached the Revisional Authority, which is the said authority on 29.10.2010 passed by the Commissioner and the Revisional Authority confirmed the said order.
8. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred present petition.
9. It is not in dispute that according to the provisions contained under Rule 17(4) of the Rules of 2010, the authority does not have power to condone delay after the expiry of lease. Therefore, any fault cannot be found with the order of the authority, whereby the application for renewal is rejected.
10. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner has requested to withdraw present petition with a view to filing fresh petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by making prayer for appropriate direction to the concerned authorities to renew the lease.
11. As mentioned hereinabove, the competent authority has not entertained and has rejected the application of the petitioner for want of authority to entertain the application filed after expiry of lease. The relevant provisions under the rules do not authorise or empower the authority to condone the delay beyond the last date of lease period. Therefore, in the present case, the authority could not have condoned the delay in preferring application after 28.10.2005.
12. Under the circumstances, the order cannot be faulted.
13. The said order dated 29.10.2010 has been confirmed by the Revisional Authority.
14. Thus, there is no reason to interfere with two concurrent orders, more particularly because they are in consonance with the relevant rules.
15. Under the circumstances, as such, the petition does not deserve to be entertained and requires to be disposed of accordingly.
16. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has requested for permission to withdraw the petition with a view to filing proceedings seeking appropriate order and direction to the concerned authorities to grant lease and/or to renew the lease or to condone the delay and direct the authorities to consider the petitioner's application for renewal on merits.
17. The said request is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner could file within the time because she is undergoing treatment for cancer.
18. Having regard to the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition is disposed of as withdrawn. It would be open to the petitioner to prefer and take out appropriate proceedings for appropriate reliefs, including relief for condonation of delay in preferring the application, which, if and when preferred, will be considered in accordance with the law.
19. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.
(K.M.
Thaker, J.) Bharat* Top