S.S. Byas, J.
1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for directions to the respondents to grant him a mining lease for sand stone in Budhpura District Bundi.
2. Material facts stated in brief are that the petitioner applied for grant of a mining lease to him, which was granted on 25-8-1982. The lease was subsequently cancelled on 20-9 1983 on the ground of over-laping of the area. The petitioner challenged this action of the respondents by a writ petition in this Court. On 11-12-1984, the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous How ever the learned Counsel for the respondents gave a assurance to the petitioner in the court that every effort will be made to grant him lease in the region desired by him, if the mining area was available for allotmen, The order of this Court is Annexure-1. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted application Annexure-2 on 12-2-1985 along with the plan Annexure 2/A and prayed for the grant of the mining lease. This application remained pending with the respondents and was rejected on 4-8-1987 by order Annexure 6. It was stated therein that the State Government has taken a policy decision that mining lease for sand stone [in] Bundi district will be granted after delineation of plots of a fixed size in the boundary to be separately notified in the Rajasthan Gazette. This policy decision was expressed in notification Anne-xure-8 dated 16-12-1985. It is contended that the approach of the respondents in rejecting his application is arbitrary. His application was kept pending for more than two years. The petitioner has, therefore, again approached to this Court for the reliefs stated at the very outset.
3. The petition is contested by the respondents mainly on the ground that in view of the notification Annexure-8 dated 16-12-1985, the application submitted by the petitioner cannot be granted for the area desired by him. If the petitioner applies again for the grant of a mining lease, his application can be considered keeping in view the notification Annexure-8. I have heard the, learned Counsel for the parties at length.
4. Before proceeding further it would be useful to state that the petitioner submitted his application Annexure-2 on 12-2-1985 when the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 (here in after to be referred to as the 'Old Rules') were in force. Notification Annexure 8 was issued when these rules were in force-subsequently in 1986, the aforesaid rules were repelled and the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (here in after to be referred to as the 'New Rules') came into force w.e.f. 4-3-1986.
5. Mr. Sharma learned Counsel for the respondents contended that on account of the repealing of the old Rules, the petitioner's application can now be considered only under the new Rules keeping in view the notification Annexure-8. It was on the other hand contended by Mr. Asopa, learned Counsel for the petitioner that notification Annexure-8 was issued under the Old Rules and it is not saved by the new Rules. Notification Annexure-8 cannot be, therefore, taken into consideration in deciding the petitioner's application. The contention raised by Mr. Asopa is not without force. Rule 2 of the New Rules contains the repeal and saving clause. It speaks as the Old Rules of 1977 have been repealed. This Rule does not save the notifications issued under the Old Rules 1977. Since notification Annexure-8 has not been saved, it lost its life and utility as soon as the New Rules came into force on 4-3-1986. Notification Annexure-8, therefore, cannot stand in the way of the petitioner and his application for a mining lease cannot be decided keeping in view this notification Annexure-8.
6. The clinching issue how ever remains as to whether the application of the petitioner should be decided in accordance with the provisions of the old Rules or new Rules. It can be said without any hesitation that it was not open to the Government to keep the petitioner's application pending for a long time and then to dispose it on the basis of notification Annexure-8. No reasons have been stated as to how and why the petitioners' application could not be disposed of for more than two years.
7. The contention of Mr. Asopa that the petitioner's application should be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Old Rules of 1977 is not well-founded. Admittedly the Rules of 1977 stand repelled by the Rules of 1986. A similar situation arose in State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone : [1981]2SCR742 . In that case also when the applications for grant of mining lease or renewal of the leases were filed, the old Rules were in vogue. The applications remained pending for a long time and when the old Rules were repealed by the new Rules, the question arose as to under which Rules old or new-the application should be considered. Their Lordships observed:
While it is true that such applications should be dealt with within a reasonable time, it cannot on that account be said that the right to have an application disposed of in a reasonable time clothes an applicant for a lease with a right to have the application disposed of on the basis of the rules in force at the time of the making of the application. No one has a vested right to the grant or renewal of a lease and none can claim a vested right to have an application for the grant or renewal of a lease dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions. In the absence of any vested rights in any one, an application for a lease has necessarily to be dealt with according to the rules in force on the date of the disposal of the application despite the fact that there is a long delay since the making of the application. We are, therefore unable to accept the submission of the learned, counsel that applications for the grant or renewal of leases made long prior to the date of G.O. Ns. No. 1312 should be dealt with as if Rule 8-C did not exist.
8. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, I find no force in the submission of Mr. Asopa that the petitioner's application for the grant of a mining lease should be considered under the old Rules. The only thing that can be done is that his application Annexure-2 should be considered and disposed of in accordance of the new Rules, Of course, keeping his priority intact as provided in Rule 7(1) of the new Rules of 1986.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, this application is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's application Annexure-2 for the grant of a mining lease to him in accordance with the provisions of Rules, 1986. In doing so, the respondents will keep his priority in view as provided in Rule 7 (1) of the new Rules.
10. No order as to costs.