Kan Singh, J.
1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution whereby the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus against the respondents for compelling them to renew the petitioner's lease for the manufacture of brick earth for a period of five years from 1-4-1963 in accordance with Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Ruless, 1955 (hereinafter called 1955 Rules) and Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1859 (hereinafter called 1959 Rules).
2. The petitioner carries on the business of manufacture of bricks at Bhadra in District Ganga-nagar. He had obtained an allotment of Khasva No. 331 frond the colonization authorities for the purpose of setting up a brick kiln and thereafter he had set up the brick kiln. The petitioner also obtained a lease from the Mines Department in accordance with 1955 Rules for quarrying earth for the purposes of manufacturing bricks. This lease purports to have been granted under Rule 57 (2) of the 1955 Rules. The Mining Department renewed the lease every year and the last renewal was to enure upto 31-3.1963.
Thereafter, when the petitioner applied for a further renewal the Assistant Mining Engineer refused to renew the lease unless the petitioner obtained, a 'no objection certificate' from the Colonization Department. Against the order of the Assistant Mining Engineer the petitioner approached the Deputy Minister, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur but the latter refused to do any thing in the matter. The petitioner claims that as the lease in question was gianted to 'him in accordance with 1955 Rules he was entitled to get a renewal for a further period of five years in accordance with Rule 30 of the aforesaid rules. After the 1955 Rules were repealed by 1959 Rules, Rule 30 of the old rules (1955 Rules) was. replaced by Rule 16 of the 1959 Rules and according to the petitioner, the position was the same, and whatever right for renewal was created by Rule 30 of the old rules was still available to him under Rule 16 of the 1959 Rules.
3. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. The learned Government Advocate raised a preliminary objection to the effect that by lapse of time the lease of the petitioner had come to an end and hereafter as renewal was granted to him more than twice no further right for renewal remained in him, and consequently, he had no legal right to maintain the present petition.
4. The contention gives rise to the question whether the petitioner has a right of renewal in himself so as to entitle him to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. Now, the consideration of the question depends on the applicability of Rule 30 of the old rules or, for that matter, Rule 16 of the 1959 Rules. Rule 30 of the 1955 Rules runs as under:
'A mining lease may be granted for a period of 5 years unless the applicant himself desires a shorter period; Provided that the period may be extended by the Government for the another period not exceeding 5 years with option to the lessee for renewal for another equivalent period, in case the lessee guarantees investments in machinery, equipments and the like, at least to the tune of 20 times the value of annual dead-rent within 3 years from the grant of such extension. The value of the machinery, equipment and the like shall be determined by the Government. Whether the lease is so renewed, the dead rent and the surface rent shall be fixed by the Government within the limits given in the Second Schedule to these rules, and shall in no case exceed twice the original dead rent and surface rent respectively and the royalty shall be charged at the rates in force at the time of renewal'.
Rule 30 contemplates that ordinarily a mining lease is to be granted for a period of five years unless the applicant himself had asked for a shorter period for the lease. Then, according to the proviso to that rule, the Government may extend the period of the lease by another period not exceeding 5 years and this will give rise in the lessee to an option to get a renewal for another equivalent period, if he had fulfilled certain conditions, such as, guaranting investitnents in machinery, equipments and the like of certain value. This rule had come up for consideration before a Division Beech of this Court in Hari Shanker v. State of Rajasthan, ILR (1961) 11 Raj 867. In construing the term 'May' as used in proviso to Rule 30 of the 1955 Rules, it was held in Hari Shaiiker's case, ILR (1961) 11 Raj 867, that in the context of the rule the word 'may' will have the significance of 'must' thereby enjoining the Government to renew the lease in favour of the lessee where such renewal has been prayed for. It was also observed that the rule made it obligatory on the part of the Government to grant the lesse initially for a period of 5 years unless the lessee himself desired ft lease for a shorter period, and if the lessee desired an extension then the same was to be granted for another 5 years but for not more than 5 years.
6. Now, if Rule 30 really applied regarding the duration of the lease In question, than the matter would have been considered according to the view taken in ILR (1961) 11 Raj 887, but the tenor of the lease Ex. 2 shows that it was granted under Rule 57 (2) of the 1955 Rules as an annual quarry lease. Rule 57 (2) which appears to us to be in the nature of an exception to the several provisions contained in the foregoing rules including Rule 30 may be reproduced hereunder :--
'The provisions of Rule 25 and Sub-rule (3) of Rule 31 and the second Schedule to these rules shall not be applicable to such quarries as are delineated in small regular plots by the Director in minor mineral beating areas for the purpose of granting fixed annual mining leases. ...........'
Now, in accordance with this rule, the Director delineates small plots for the grant o!r fixed annual mining leases. The term 'fixed annual mining leases' clearly denotes that such leases as are granted under Rule 57 (2) have a fixed life or duration and they are not such leases as ate covered by Rule 30 whose duration is 5 years or where the petitioner himself desired a shorter duration then it is one for a shorter period. Such annual leases having a fixed duration will come to an end on She expiry of the year and a fresh lease will have to be taken to enable a lessee to continue to exploit the minor minerals in the area given out to him. It is true that Rule 57 (2) excludes expressly only the provisions of Rule 25 and sub-rule (3) of Rule 31 and the second schedule to the rules regarding the leases granted under the provisions of this sub-rule but that, to our mind, will not conclude the matter. We have to compare the scheme of Rule 30 and that envisaged under Rule 57 (2), Rale 30 clearly contemplates long term leases so that a lessee may be able to develop the industry for which he had obtained a mining lease and for which he has to make an investment of some size, and as for recouping his capital a short term lease may not be of any good. On the other hand, Rule 57 (2) deals with exploitation of such minor minerals as could be exploited in comparatively a shorter period. Thus, where the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 57 apply the provisions of Rule 30 will be inapplicable. Even assuming that the 'proviso to Rule 30 regarding renewal applies, then too the petitioner will have no case. The proviso to Rule 30 of the 1955 rules only contemplates two renewals and after they are granted, there is no further right of renewal and the area covered by the former lease becomes free for grant of a fresh lease. Now, on his own showing, the petitioner had obtained renewals more than twice and the resultant position is that thereafter he has no right of further renewal. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the preliminary objection raised by the learned Government Advocate should prevail.
7. Consequently, we do not find any force in the writ petition which is accordingly hereby dismissed with costs.