S.K. Sidhu, J.
1. This is a petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a writ for quashing Notification No. AME/Tonk/RCRI/1982, dated, February 18, 1982, issued by the Assistant Mining Engineer, Tonk, inviting applications for the grant of mining lease for bajri over a certain area on the bank of river Banas in village Chironj on rent-cum-royalty basis, and for a direction to the respondents (i.e., the State of Rajasthan, the Director of Mines Rajasthan and Assistant Mining Engineer, Tonk) to grant the mining lease over the area in question to the petitioner on long term basis and, till the fin lisation of the long term mining lease in favour of the petitioner, to grant him a permit for removal of bajri on short term basis.
2. A perusal of the averments made in the writ petition would at once show that there is no merit at all in this petition and that therefore it should be dismissed in limine. It will be seen that the petitioner made an application, dated, February 23, 1981, for the grant of a mining lease for bajri over an area of 300 150 square meters, and simultaneously asked for a short-term permit till the application was granted on regular basis. The said application was rejected by the authorities concerned, vide order, dated, November 12, 1981, on the ground that as a matter of policy the State Government had decided to grant such leases on rent-cum-royalty basis instead of granting them on payment of royalty alone The petitioner filed a writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1923/1981) challenging the said rejection and obtained an interim order therein staying the operation of the order of rejection of his application. That writ petition was still pending when the petitioner filed the present writ petition on March 31, 1982, alleging that the impugned notification, dated, February 18, 1 982, inviting applications for the grant of a mining lease over the area in question for bajri on rent-cum royalty basis had been issued to frustrate the petitioner's efforts, including his effort made by means of the earlier writ petition which is still pending to obtain a mining lease on payment of royalty alone, because, as the petitioner further avers, even if the earlier writ petition is allowed the petitioner will still be not able to obtain the lease except on rent-cum-royalty basis.
3. A study of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1977 (hereinafter called the Rules) would reveal that the Rajasthan Government may lease out minor mineral deposits in the State in several modes. One of the modes of granting such leases is on payment of royalty at the rate for the time being specified in the First Schedule of the Rules in respect of a particular mineral. Chapter II of the Rules deals with 'Grant of Mining Lease' on payment of royalty or dead rent whichever is higher. No person desirous of obtaining a mining lease is given the right to insist that the mode prescribed in Chapter II of the Rules be adopted to the exclusion of other modes for the grant of such a lease.
4. Another mode of granting a mining lease is on rent-cum-royalty basis as provided for in Chapter III of the Rules. Rule 22 in this Chapter would show that the Mining Engineer/Assistant Mining Engineer may grant a rent-cum-royalty lease over any mineral deposit if he has, after approval by the Director, already, notified it in the Rajasthan Gazette to do so. The impugned notification is the one published in the Rajasthan Gazette by the Assistant Mining Engineer in accordance with the provisions of Rule 22 of Chapter III of the Rules. The only challenge to this notification made by the petitioner's learned Counsel is based on the averment that it purports to have been issued in pursuance of a policy decision of the Government and that such policy decision, if any, has not been published in the Rajasthan Gazette. A perusal of Rule 22 would shww that the only requirement of the rule is that the notification in question should be issued only after approval by the Director. It is not the requirement of the rule that such notification, in order to be valid, must be shown to have been issued pursuant to a notified policy of the Government. The mere fact that the impugned notification also makes mention of a policy of the Government to grant such leases on rent-cum-royalty basis is no ground for reading into the rule some additional words which are not there for the purpose of making an argument that such a notification as the present one must be struck down in the absence of a previously notified policy of the Government in that behalf. As already stated, the only requirement of the rule is approval of such notification by the Director. It is not the petitioner's case that the Assistant Mining Engineer did not obtain the approval of the Director before issuing this notification.
5. If we read Rule 61, it will be discovered that in super-session of the two modes discussed above, the Government may adopt any other method for leading out mineral deposit in the best interest of the industry and development of the deposit. The rule however requires that the decision to adopt any procedure other than the procedure prescribed in Chapter II and Id of the Rules must have been notified in the Rajasthan Gazette in advance. Since the method of granting the lease over the area in question is a method provided for in Chapter III of the Rules, the requirement as to notifying the decision in the Gazette, as contained in Rule 61, is not applicable in the instant case.
6. For all these reasons, I have no hesitation in holding that this writ petition is wholly groundless and even vexatious in view of the fact that a similar writ petition filed earlier was still pending at its institution and is still pending. It appears that the grant of interim relief to the petitioner by the Court from time to time has encouraged him to come to the Court over again with pleas which ex facie do not stand the test of scrutiny and the Rules. The writ petition is therefore dismissed in limine.