[2025:RJ-JP:36173-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 535/2025 Smt Ramjanki Kabra, Wife Of Late Shri Mool Chand Kabra, Aged About 94 Years, Ex President Mining Association, 2-Kha-7, Shastri Nagar, Ajmer (Rajasthan). ----Appellant Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Department Of Mines, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Deputy Secretary, Mines Group-II, Department Of Mines And Geology, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chobisa, Adv. with Ms. Priyansha Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manjeet Kaur, Adv. with Ms. Garvita Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 09/09/2025 1. The challenge is to the order dated 23.01.2025 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner/appellant was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration the facts that there was an interim order restraining the mining activities and therefore, the State ought to have taken the same into [2025:RJ-JP:36173-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-535/2025] consideration for the purpose of considering the limitation as provided under Rule 24A(1) and 24A(10) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960(hereinafter referred as ‘Rules of 1960’). Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that although it is an admitted position that lease period expired on 24.07.2007, however the intervening period during which the mining activities were closed have to be considered and accordingly, the lease period would be treated as continuing. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions and also the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. We find that the learned Single Judge has took into consideration, the contentions raised before us. Learned Single Judge also took into consideration the provisions of Rule 24A(1) and 24A(10) of the Rules of 1960, to deny the relief claimed. 5. It would be apposite to quote Rules 24A(1) and 24A(10) of the Rules of 1960:- “24A(1) An application for the renewal of a mining lease shall be made to the State Government in Form J, at least twelve months before the date on which the lease is due to expire, through such officer or authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf. 24A(10) The State Government may condone delay in an application for renewal of mining lease made after the time limit prescribed in sub-rule (1) provided the application has been made before the expiry of the lease.” 6. The aforesaid Rules, clearly reflect that an application in a particular format for extension/renewal of the lease has to be moved 12 months before the date of expiry of the lease. The 12 months period can be condoned for renewal, but an application in [2025:RJ-JP:36173-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-535/2025] all circumstances ought to be moved before the date of expiry of the lease. 7. The date when the lease period was expiring was known to the appellant i.e. 24.07.2007, however, no application for renewal has been made 12 months prior to the date of expiry. It is an admitted position that even up to the date of expiry of the lease period, the renewal application has not been moved and the same was moved on 13.08.2007 by that time the lease has expired. 8. The aspect regarding the closure of mining activities would have no relation to the application for seeking renewal. The issue with regard to conducting mining activities for a further period, as per the earlier lease is a separate consideration altogether and the same would not in any manner give any right to the applicant seeking renewal or extension of time. Admittedly, extension of lease was not granted by the respondents. 9. We also notice that provision of Rule 24A(1) and 24A(10) of the Rules of 1960, are not under challenge by the appellant. In view thereto, the same have to be mandatorily followed. Any departure from the same would invite departmental proceedings even against the officers of the mining department. Keeping in view the above, no relief can be granted to the appellant. 10. Accordingly, the present Special Appeal (Writ) is dismissed. 11. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J HEENA/MAHIMA/14