1,55,000 was deposited by the appellant and possession was also handed over to it on March 15, 1951.
It is clearly stated in the order that the companyditions under the Mineral Concession Rules 1949 under which mining or prospecting operation is allowed to be undertaken do number provide for payment of premium by the lessee except with the prior approval of the Central Government.
691 of 1967 praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the aforesaid order, to restrain the State from revoking the licence and dispossessing the appellant from the mining area absolutely or in the alternative, till companypensation along with refund of the premium of Rs.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 29th July, 1970 of the Rajasthan High Court in B. Civil Special Appeal No.
1,55,000 from the appellant.
Thereafter some companyrespondence took place between the appellant and the State Government regarding execution of the lease, its terms and companyditions and the like.
This order is significant in more than one way.
Then came the State Governments impugned order of November 9, 1967, addressed to the appellant.
5,65,000 between 1951 and 1955.
The learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ application as infructuous in view of the offer made by the State in its application of April 20, 1970, repeated through the learned Advocate General.
1,27,616.36 for the period 1 4 1960 to 14 9 1965 on pain of legal action.
The appellant was asked by this numberice to show cause why further action to take immediate possession of the area should number be taken.
1,27,616.36 as dead rent for block No.
V. Patel, S. M. Jain, for the appellant.
A premium of Rs.
The area originally was 6021 acres but later on a dam, by the name of Meza Dam, was companystructed over some parts of the original area and the appellant was left to work on 2924 acres.
On May 15, 1965, the Mining Engineer, Rajasthan, sent a numberice to the appellant to deposit the dead rent amounting to Rs.
1,55,000 and the dead rent realised in excess of royalty were paid by the State.
There was reference in the above order to the fact that the appellant approached the Central Government in revision.
It was, therefore, pointed out that the acceptance of the premium was illegal.
In the aforesaid application of April 20, 1970, the State Government was prepared to pay companypensation to the appellant at the rate of Rs.
The lease was for a period of 20 years with an option of renewal of the lease for another 20 years as per companyditions prescribed in the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 briefly the Rules .
On June 19, 1955, the Director of Mines and Geology, Rajasthan, sent a numberice to the appellant intimating that the orders sanctioning the lease stood revoked with effect from June 6, 1955.
7750 per annum for the unexpired period of 20 years ending on March 14, 1971.
It appears, meanwhile, the State Government proposed to grant a lease to the appellant and the latter did number press the review application.
The learned single Judge while dismissing the application observed that if the petitioner thought that the companypensation was inadequate he companyld agitate the matter in companyrt.
The appellants appeal thereafter to the Division Bench was summarily dismissed and leave to appeal to this Court was also rejected.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
As a last alternative it prayed for a direction to the State to grant the lease of the balance area of 3628 acres or such other area to which the appellant was entitled in law.
The Government of India by its order of March 19, 1966, set aside the order of May 15, 1965, demanding Rs.
The appellant preferred a revision application to the Government of India against this order.
Miss Maya Rao for the respondent.
It is also companymon case that numberlease was executed within six months of the acceptance of the tender as required.
The appellant after receipt of the order of November 9, 1967, instituted an application under article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Rajasthan being Writ Petition No.
1,55,000.
The appellant submitted a review application against the order of the State Government cancelling the mine lease on February 23, 1957.
It was further held that the State Government was entitled to charge only royalty in the present case and it companyld charge dead rent or royalty, whichever was higher, only after execution of a formal lease.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI, J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court by which an appeal against the judgment of a single Bench was summarily rejected.
It is stated that the appellant spent Rs.
It was also pointed out in the order that numbersuch approval was secured by the State Government before accepting the premium of Rs.
See Central Government letter dated March 19, 1966.
172 of 1970.
1562 of 1970.
A reference was also made by the appellant to the Central Government on March 12, 1963, to direct the State Government to sanction the lease.
It may be numbered that in this numberice exception was taken for the appellant number executing the lease within the requisite period of six months which, it was mentioned, expired on August 27, 1953.
6 except sidries mine in Bhilwara District on payment of the tendered amount of Rs.
In answer to a numberification of March 29, 1950, issued by the State of Rajasthan inviting tenders for mining rights for mica on certain terms and companyditions, the appellant submitted its tender which was accepted on December 30, 1950 and a numberification in that behalf was made by the State Government on February 6, 1951, granting the mining lease for mica for block No.
