{"id":206398,"date":"1965-03-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1965-03-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965"},"modified":"2018-12-05T02:25:59","modified_gmt":"2018-12-04T20:55:59","slug":"state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965","title":{"rendered":"State Of Rajasthan vs Hari Shankar Rajendra Pal on 19 March, 1965"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Rajasthan vs Hari Shankar Rajendra Pal on 19 March, 1965<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 296, \t\t 1965 SCR (3) 402<\/div>\n
Author: R Dayal<\/div>\n
Bench: Dayal, Raghubar<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHARI SHANKAR RAJENDRA PAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n19\/03\/1965\n\nBENCH:\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\nBENCH:\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nRAMASWAMI, V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR  296\t\t  1965 SCR  (3) 402\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1987 SC1073\t (12,16)\n D\t    1988 SC2187\t (35)\n\n\nACT:\nRajasthan Mines Mineral Concession Rules, 1958.\t Chapters IV\nand V, r. 30-Matters not provided for in Chapter  IV-Chapter\nV, if applicable-Rule 30 if applicable to Chapter  IV-Period\nof first extension-Whose option.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  respondent\t who had as a result of auction\t obtained  a\nmining\t lease\tfrom  the  appellant--State,   applied\t for\nextension  of  the  lease period in view  of  the  mandatory\nnature\tof the main provision of rule 30 and  simultaneously\nalso applied for renewal of the lease in accordance with the\nprovisions of the proviso to rule 30.  The appellant refused\nthe  first prayer but extended the period by a\tfew  months.\nThe respondent thereafter, filed a writ petition in the High\nCourt for striking down the order of the Government renewing\nthe lease by a few months and for directing the appellant to\nextend\tthe  lease in the first instance for  two  years  to\nbring it in conformity with the period of lease specified in\nrule  30  and  to renew after the expiry  of  such  extended\nperiod, for a further period of 5 years under rule 30.\t The\nappellant contended that the provisions of Chapter IV of the\nrules did not apply to the grant of mining leases by auction\nor tender provided for by Chapter V of the rules and that in\nany case the initial period short of 5 years must be  deemed\nto  have been at the desire of the respondent and  that\t any\nfurther\t extension of the period of lease under the  proviso\nwas in the discretion of the appellant and consequently, the\nrespondent  could not claim to have the period of the  lease\nextended for a period of 5 years.  The High Court  disagreed\nwith  the appellant's contentions and allowed the  petition.\nIn appeal by certificate;\nHELD:\t  Matters  not\tprovided for by rules in  Chapter  V\nwith  regard to mining leases will be covered by  provisions\nrelating to those matters in Chapter IV, as these provisions\ndeal with the essential Incidents affecting grant of  mining\nleases. [404 H]\nRule  30  applies  to leases granted under  Chapter  V\tboth\nbecause the rules under Chapter IV apply to such leases\t and\nbecause there is no corresponding rule in Chapter V. [407 G-\nH]\nThe  word \"may\" in the proviso in rule 30 in regard  to\t the\nextension  of  the  period by,\tGovernment  should  also  be\nconstrued  as  'shall',\t so  as\t to  mike  it  incumbent  on\nGovernment  to extend the period of the lease if the  lessee\ndesires extension.  Of course no question for the  extension\nof  the lease can arise if the lessee himself does not\twish\nto have the lease for a further period.\t It is on account of\nthis option existing in the lessees that the word 'may'\t has\nbeen  used  in this context.  But the option  given  to\t the\nlessee to have the lease extended by period of another\tfive\nyears  is  to  be respected only if  the  lessee  gives\t the\nguarantee referred to in the proviso. [408 H]\nThe  first extension must be five years and not\t less.\t The\nperiod of lease can be shorter than five years only when the\napplicant desires and not when the Government desires.\t[409\nB]\n403\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPFELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1963.
\nAppeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated August 1, 1961  of
\nthe Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ No. 86 of 1960.
\nC.   C. Kasliwal Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan
\nand M. M. Tiwari, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
Rameshwar  Nath\t S.  N. Andley, and P.\tL.  Vohra,  for\t the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nRaghubar  Dayal, J. This appeal, on certificate\t granted  by
\nthe  Rajasthan\tHigh  Court,  raises  the  question  of\t the
\napplicability of the provisions of Chapter IV and thereby of
\nr. 30 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1955,
\nhereinafter called the rules, to the grants of mining leases
\nunder the provisions of Chapter V of the rules.
\nThe  facts  leading to this appeal are briefly\tthese.\t The
\nrespondent  obtained the mining lease for  extracting  sand-
\nstone from the mines in certain area from the Government  of
\nRajasthan  in  1956.  The lease was granted as a  result  of
\nauction.  The period of the lease was from April 1, 1956  to
\nJuly 31, 1959.\tThe respondent applied for extension of\t the
\nperiod upto two years in view of the mandatory nature of the
\nmain provision of r. 30 and Simultaneously also applied\t for
\nthe renewal of the lease for a further period in  accordance
\nwith  the  provisions of the proviso to r.  30.\t  The  first
\nprayer\twas  refused and the State Government  extended\t the
\nperiod\tof  the lease at first by six months  and  later  by
\nanother two months.  The respondent thereafter filed a\twrit
\npetition  under\t Art. 226 of the Constitution  in  the\tHigh
\nCourt  and prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus  directing
\nthe striking down of\t the   order   of   the\t  Government
\nrenewing the lease for 8 months\t   and\tdirecting the  State
\nof Rajasthan further to extend the lease     in\t the   first
\ninstance  for  two years from July 30. 1959  to\t bring,\t  it
\nunconformity with the period of lease specified in r.  30
\nand to renew. after the expiry of such extended period,\t for
\na further period  of 5 years under r. 30 of the rules.\t The
\nState of Rajasthan, appellant, contested the petition on the
\nground\tthat the provisions of Chapter IV of the  rules\t did
\nnot apply to the grant of mining leases by auction or tender
\nprovided for by Chapter V of the rules\tand that in any case
\nthe  initial period short of 5 years must be deemed to\thave
\nbeen  at the desire of the respondent and that\tany  further
\nextension  of the period of the lease under the proviso\t was
\nin  the discretion of the Government and  consequently,\t the
\nrespondent  could not claim to have the period of the  lease
\nextended for a period of 5 years.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court held that the provisions of Chapter IV of the
\nrules  were  applicable as far as possible to the  grant  of
\nmining
\nM\/B(N) 3SCI-13
\n404<\/span>
\nleases\tby  auction under Chapter V. that though  the  State
\nGovernment had to give a lease for 5 years in view of r. 30,
\nyet  the  shorter  period  of the lease\t in  favour  of\t the
\nrespondent  must,  in the circumstances, be deemed  to\thave
\nbeen at his request and that the respondent was entitled  to
\nan extension of the lease by a further period of 5 years  in
\naccordance with the provisions of the proviso.\tIt therefore
\ndirected  the  State  Government to renew the  lease  for  a
\nperiod of 5 years from the expiry of the original lease with
\noption of further renewal, if so desired, by another  period
\nof 5 years subject to the conditions mentioned in r.   30.
\nIt is against this order that this appeal has been filed.
\nTwo  questions are raised for the appellant in\tthis  Court.
\nThe first is that the provisions of Chapter IV of the  rules
\ndo  not govern the grant of mining leases by  auction  under
\nthe provisions of Chapter V of the rules.  The other is that
\nthe  proviso  to  r.  30  gives\t discretion  to\t the   State
\nGovernment to extend the period of the lease for any  period
\nnot  exceeding\t5 years that it is not\tmandatory  that\t the
\nState  Government  must extend the lease by a  period  of  5
\nyears as held by the High Court.  We are of opinion that the
\nHigh  Court  has  come to a right conclusion  on  these\t two
\npoints.\n<\/p>\n
Section 5 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Develop-
\nment)  Act,  1948 (Act LIII of 1948) empowered\tthe  Central
\nGovernment  to make rules, by notification in  the  official
\nGazette,  for regulating the grant of mining leases  or\t for
\nprohibiting  the  grant\t of such leases in  respect  of\t any
\nmineral\t in  any  area.\t In the exercise of  its  power\t the
\nCentral\t Government  framed the\t Mineral  Concession  Rules,
\n1949, hereinafter referred to as the Central rules.   Clause\n<\/p>\n
(ii) of r. 3 of the Central rules defined ‘minor mineral’ to
\nmean ‘building stone’ etc., which admittedly included  sand-
\nstone Rule 4 stated that the rules would not apply to  minor
\nminerals the extraction of which would be regulated by\tsuch
\nrules as the State Government might prescribe.\tThe State of
\nRajasthan  made\t the rules in 1955 in the  exercise  of\t the
\npowers conferred by r. 4 of the Central rules.
\nChapter\t IV of the rules deals with grant of  mining  leases
\nand consists of rr. 19 to 32.  Chapter V deals with grant of
\nmining leases and royalty collection contracts by auction or
\nby inviting tenders or by other methods and consists of\t rr.
\n33  to\t42.  Apart from the heading of Chapter IV  being  in
\ngeneral\t terms and so applicable to the grant of all  mining
\nleases\tby whatever process, a comparison of the  provisions
\nof rules in Chapter IV and those in Chapter V shows that all
\nthe incidents of a grant of a mining refuse contemplated and
\nprovided  for in Chapter IV ire not provided for by  Chapter
\nV.  This leads to the irresistible conclusion  that  matters
\nnot provided for by rules in Chapter V with regard to mining
\nleases\twill  be  covered by provisions\t relating  to  those
\nmatters\t in  chapter IV, as these provisions deal  with\t the
\nessential incidents affecting grant of mining lease.\n<\/p>\n
405<\/span><\/p>\n
We may therefore go through the provisions of Chapter IV  to
\nhave  a comprehensive view of what the rules provide and  to
\nsee whether all of them are such that the Legislature  could
\nhave  intended\ttheir not applying to leases  granted  under
\nChapter\t V  or whether they, by their nature, can  apply  to
\nleases\tgranted under Chapter IV only.\tRule 19\t deals\twith
\nrestrictions  on  grant\t of  mining  leases.   There  is  no
\ncorresponding  rule in Chapter V. It is\t inconceivable\tthat
\nthe restrictions mentioned in r. 19 be not applicable to the
\ngrant  of  mining leases by auction or tender or  any  other
\nmethod.\t  The matters of substance are the contents  of\t the
\nlease,\tthe persons to whom the minerals about which  leases
\ncan  be\t granted  and not the procedure to  be\tfollowed  in
\ngranting  the  lease.  Chapter IV deals with  the  grant  of
\nmining\tleases on applications for such a grant.  Chapter  V
\nmainly\tdeals with grant of mining leases by auction  or  by
\ninviting tenders or by other methods.  It is clear that\t the
\nprocedure to be followed for the grant of leases is left  to
\nthe discretion of the Government though, ordinarily, in\t the
\nabsence\t if  general or special orders, the  procedure\tlaid
\ndown  in Chapter IV is to be followed.\tSub-r. (3) of r.  33
\nprovides that leases by public auction or tender under\tsub-
\nr. (1) shall be given only in such a case as the  Government
\nmay,  by  general or special order, direct and r.  42  gives
\ndiscretion  to\tGovernment  to adopt any  other\t method\t for
\nleasing\t out  minor  mineral deposits  in  the\tinterest  of
\nindustry  and development of the deposit.  The\trestrictions
\nlaid down by r. 19 are that no mining lease is to be granted
\nin  respect of any minor mineral notified by  Government  in
\nthat  behalf, that no mining lease for the notified  mineral
\nwill  be  granted  to  a person\t unless\t he  holds  a  valid
\ncertificate  of approval and that no mining lease  shall  be
\ngranted\t to an individual person unless he be a\t citizen  of
\nIndia  except with the prior approval of Government.   These
\nrestrictions are of a general nature and salutary in  effect
\nand  the Legislature, in our view, could not have made\tthem
\ninapplicable  to the grant of mining leases under the  rules
\nin Chapter V.\n<\/p>\n
Rules  20 to 23 are applicable to applications for grant  of
\nmining\t leases.   They\t mention  the  person  to  whom\t  an
\napplication  is\t to be made, the fee which is  to  accompany
\nsuch  application, what the application should\tcontain\t and
\nhow  priority  is  to be given if there\t be  more  than\t one
\napplication  in\t respect  of the  same\tland.\tThese  rules
\ncannot, by their nature, apply to the grant of mining leases
\nby auction or tender or by any other method.
\nRule 24 provides for the Register of Mining Leases.  Most of
\nthe  particulars to be noted in this Register relate to\t the
\ngrant  of  mining  leases on application  but  some  of\t the
\nparticulars  could  be entered with respect  to\t the  mining
\nleases\t granted  by  following\t the  other  procedure\t and
\ntherefore  its provisions can partially apply to the  mining
\nleases\tgranted under Chapter V. Rule 25 will  also  usually
\napply  to  applications only, as in the case of\t granting  a
\nmining-\t  lease\t  otherwise,  the  Government\twould\thave
\nordinarily already decided
\n406<\/span>
\nthe  area for which the lease is to be given.  Rule 26\tlays
\ndown  a restriction on the length and breadth of an area  to
\nbe  leased, but gives discretion to the Government to  relax
\nthe  provisions\t of  the  rule.\t This  rule  is\t of  general
\napplication, subject to the discretion in the Government  to
\nrelax  its  provisions and there is no reason why  it  would
\nhave  been made inapplicable to mining leases granted  under
\nChapter V. Rule 27 provides that the boundaries of the\tarea
\ncovered\t by a mining lease shall run vertically\t down  below
\nthe  surface  towards  the  centre of  the  earth.   Such  a
\nspecification  of  the\tboundaries  of\tthe  area  is\tvery
\nessential  in  connection with mining leases  and  the\trule
\nabout  it  must\t apply to all mining  leases  granted  under
\nChapter V.\n<\/p>\n
Rule  28  deals\t with deposit of  security  and\t applies  to
\napplicants for mining leases and not to those who are to get
\nleases\tunder Chapter V. There is a specific  provision\t for
\nsecurity under r. 37 (iv), in Chapter V.\n<\/p>\n
Rule  29 deals with transfer of mining leases  and  provides
\nthat  a lessee with the previous sanction of the  Government
\nand  subject to certain conditions could transfer his  lease
\nor any right or interest therein.  There is no corresponding
\nrule  in Chapter V. This indicates that r. 29 will apply  to
\nthe transfer of mining leases granted under Chapter V. There
\nis no good reason why such a lessee be deprived of his right
\nto  transfer or be free from any restriction laid down in  r\n<\/p>\n
29.  Rule 30 deals with the period of lease and is the\trule
\nwhich is to be considered by us.\n<\/p>\n
Rule 31 lays down the conditions subject to which the mining
\nlease  is  granted.  This rule has 24 clauses  dealing\twith
\nvarious\t matters.   It\tis clear from r.  41  in  Chapter  V
\ndealing\t with  the  execution of lease that  the  terms\t and
\nconditions mentioned in r. 31 would be included in the lease
\nexecuted  by  the lessee to whom a mining lease\t is  -ranted
\nunder  Chapter V. of course, r. 41 provides that Such  terms
\nand conditions would be so modified as might be necessary by
\nreason of the provisions of rr. 33 and 34.\n<\/p>\n
Sub.r,\t(2)  of\t r. 23 provides that in cases  of  grant  of
\nmining\tleases by auction or by inviting tenders the  annual
\ndead-rent of the lease would be determined in the auction or
\nby  tend as the case may be and may exceed the rate give  in
\nthe  Second  Schedule  to the rules.   Rule  34\t deals\twith
\npayment\t of  royalty  through  the  contractor\tfor  royalty
\ncollection.  These provisions of rr. 33(2) and 34 would\t re-
\nquire modification in conditions (3) and (4) of r. 31.
\nIt  has been urged that the specific mention of r. 31 in  r.
\n41  indicates  that the other rules in Chapter\tIV  are\t not
\napplicable to the grant of mining leases under Chapter V. We
\ndo not agree and
\n407<\/span>
\nare of opinion that the specific mention of r. 31 is made in
\nr. 41 In view of the fact that it was to apply with suitable
\nmodifications.\t Rules\tin Chapter IV which  apply  as\tthey
\nstand do require no specific mention for their applicability
\nto the -rant of mining leases under Chapter V.
\nRule  32 deals with the currency of the lease  and  provides
\nthat  the  currency of the lease shall be from the  date  of
\ncommunication to the party unless otherwise stated, that the
\nlessee shall have no right to continue work or to accumulate
\nstock  on  or  after the date of termination  of  the  lease
\nhowever\t unless otherwise sanctioned by Government and\tthat
\nall  accumulated  stock and immovable property left  in\t the
\nleased out area after the date of expiry of the lease  shall
\nbe deemed to be Government property.  The provisions of this
\nrule  are  essential to define the currency  of\t the  mining
\nlease  granted\tunder  Chapter V and to the  rights  of\t the
\nlessee and the State in regard to continuing the work  after
\nthe date of termination of the lease or to the matter  lying
\nin the leased out area after the expiry of the lease.  There
\nis  no\tcorresponding  rule in Chapter V. Rule\t32  must  be
\ndeemed to apply to the leases granted under Chapter V.
\nIt  would thus appear that the provisions of rr. 19, 26,  27
\n29 and 32, by their nature, must apply to the leases granted
\nunder  Chapter V as they are expressed in general terms\t and
\ncan  apply to all mining leases.  If they were not  intended
\nto  apply  to  mining leases granted under  Chapter  V,\t the
\nlegislature  would have made an express provision  about  it
\nand  would  have  also\tmade  some  suitable   corresponding
\nprovisions for the leases granted under Chapter V.
\nWe  are\t therefore of opinion that the contention  that\t the
\nrules under Chapter IV do not apply to mining leases granted
\nunder Chapter V is not sound and that the High Court rightly
\nheld  that  they  do apply so far as  applicable  to  mining
\nleases granted tinder Chapter V.\n<\/p>\n
Rule  30  deals with the period of lease.   This  rule\twill
\napply  to  leases granted under Chapter V both\tbecause\t the
\nrules  under  Chapter IV apply to such\tleases\tand  because
\nthere  is no corresponding rule in Chapter V. Reference\t has
\nbeen  made  to rr. 38 and 39 in Chapter V  which  deal\twith
\ncertain\t payments if the period of lease is not more than  1
\nyear  or is more than one year respectively.  The fixing  of
\nthe  period of the lease is an essential term of the  lease,
\nRule  32  in  Chapter  IV provides  when  the  lease  is  to
\ncommence.   The lease should also provide the time  when  it
\nshould\tterminate.  That can be done either by setting\tdown
\nthe  actual date or by expressing the period of\t the  lease.
\nRules  38 and 39 provide for different matters.\t They  apply
\nwhen  the  period of the lease is already fixed\t tinder\t the
\nterms of the lease and in accordance with the rules.\n<\/p>\n
408<\/span><\/p>\n
The next matter to be considered is the construction of r.30
\nwhich reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t      Period of lease-A mining lease may be  granted
\n\t      for  a period of 5 years unless the  applicant
\n\t      himself desires it shorter period;
\n\t      Provided\tthat the period may be\textended  by
\n\t      the   Government\t for  another\tperiod\t not
\n\t      exceeding\t 5 years with option to\t the  lessee
\n\t      for  renewal for another equivalent period  in
\n\t      case  the\t lessee\t guarantees  investments  in
\n\t      machinery equipments and the like, it least to
\n\t      the tune of 20 times the value of annual dead-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      rent   within  3\tyears  from  the   of\tsuch
\n\t      extension.    The\t value\tof  the\t  machinery,
\n\t      equivalent and the like shall be determined by
\n\t      the Government.  Were the lease is so renewed,
\n\t      the  dead rent and the surface rent  shall  be
\n\t      fixed  by\t the Government\t within\t the  limits
\n\t      given  in the Second Schedule to these  rules,
\n\t      and shall in no case exceed twice the original
\n\t      dead  rent and surface rent respectively,\t and
\n\t      the  royalty shall be charged at the rates  in
\n\t      force at the time of renewal”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is urged for the appellant that the State Government\t has
\ndiscretion to fix the initial period of the lease as well as
\nto fix the of the extension of the lease after the expiry of
\nthe initial period.  The High Court did not agree with\tthis
\nsubmission of the and, we think, rightly.\n<\/p>\n
The  word ‘may’ in the main provision of the rule must\tmean
\nshall’\tand make the provision mandatory.  This\t is  obvious
\nfrom  the  last\t portion of the\t provision.   If  the  State
\nGovernment  had discretion to fix any period of\t the  lease,
\nthe  last portion of the provision would be redundant.\t The
\nGovernment  could fix the period of the lease at any  period
\nshorter\t than live yea-AS.  But the provision  requires\t the
\nfixing\tof  the period shorter than 5 years  only  when\t the
\napplicant desires a shorter period.  The period of the lease
\ntherefore  can\tbe  shorter than five years  only  when\t the
\napplicant  desires  and\t not when  the\tGovernment  desires.
\nGovernment  must fix the period of the lease at 5  years  in
\nthe absence of any expression of desire by the applicant for
\ntaking the lease for a shorter period.\n<\/p>\n
The word ‘may’ in the proviso in regard to the extension  of
\nthe period by Government should also be construed as  ‘shall
\nso  as\tto  make it incumbent on Government  to\t extend\t the
\nperiod\tof  the lease if the lessee desires  extension.\t  Of
\ncourse no question for the extension of the lease can  arise
\nif the lessee himself does not wish to have the lease for  a
\nfurther period.\t It is on account of this option existing in
\nthe  lessee  that  the\tword ‘may’ has\tbeen  used  in\tthis
\ncontext.  The lessee has been given a further option to have
\nthe lease extended by another five years but such an  option
\nis  to be respected only if he gives the guarantee  referred
\nto  in\tthe proviso.  If he is not prepared to give  such  a
\nguarantee, he cannot exercise the option for
\n409<\/span>
\nthe extension of the lease and the lease must  automatically
\nexpire at the end of the first extended period.
\nThe  first extension has to be for five\t years.\t  Government
\nhas  no\t option in that regard as well.\t This  appears\tfrom
\nwhat is provided in connection with the option of the lessee
\nfor a second extension. The second extension, at his option,
\nis to be for a period equivalent to the period of the  first
\nextension.  The guarantee to be given is to the effect\tthat
\nthe  lessee would invest in machinery etc., at least to\t the
\ntune of 20 times the value of the annual dead-rent within  3
\nyears  from the grant of such extension.  There is no  point
\nin,  taking  a gurantee to make certain\t investments  within
\nthree years if the second extended period of the lease is of
\na  shorter  duration  as  it can  be  if  Government  has  a
\ndiscretion in granting extension for a period shorter than 5
\nyears.\tIf the first extension be for less than three  years
\nthe second extension cannot be for a longer period.  If that
\nexpression  ‘such extension’ refers to the extension on\t the
\nexercise of the option of the lessee at the end of the first
\nextension,  it\twould be a preferable  construction  of\t the
\nproviso\t to hold that the Government is bound to extend\t the
\nperiod\tof  the lease for five years at the  expiry  of\t the
\ninitial\t period of the lease and that the lessee  will\thave
\nthe  option for renewal of the lease for another five  years
\nin case be guarantees the requisite investment as  mentioned
\nin the proviso.\t Another way of looking at the provision-and
\na better way–is that the expression ‘such extension’ refers
\nto  the first extension which the Government grants  at\t the
\nexpiry of the initial term of the lease.  This means that at
\nthe  time of granting the first extension the lessee has  to
\nchoose\twhether\t he  should also ask for the  option  for  a
\nsecond extension.  The option would then be an integral part
\nof  the agreement about the first extension.  This  is\talso
\nindicated  from\t the  language of the  proviso\tlinking\t the
\nperiod of extension with the option for renewal of the lease
\nfor  an equivalent period If no option as such is  given  at
\nthe time and is not a term of the lease, the lessee may\t not
\nbe  able  to ask for a second extension at the\tend  of\t the
\nfirst  extended\t period of the lease.  When he\tsecures\t the
\nexercise of such an option as a term of the lease, he has to
\nguarantee that within the first three years of the  extended
\nperiod\tof  the\t lease he will\tmake  the  heavy  investment
\nmentioned in the proviso with the resultant confidence\tthat
\nhe  will have undisturbed lessee rights for a period  of  10
\nyears  from  the expiry of the initial term  of\t the  lease:
\nWhichever construction be put, with respect to the time when
\nthe term about option is to be settled between the  parties,
\nit  must follow that the period of the first extension\tmust
\nbe five years and not less.\n<\/p>\n
We  are further of opinion that the High Court is  right  in
\nholding that the respondent’s taking the lease for a  period
\nupto  July 31, 1959 must amount to his expressing  a  desire
\nfor  having  a\tlease for that period.\tIf  he\tdid  not  so
\ndesire,\t he  need not have bid and taken the lease  for\t the
\nperiod for which it was to be given by auction.\n<\/p>\n
410<\/span><\/p>\n
it has been argued for the State that the High Court granted
\nrelief\tto the respondent in excess of what he\thad  prayed,
\ninasmuch  as the High Court had directed the  Government  to
\nrenew  the respondent’s first lease for a period of 5  years
\nwith  option  to further renewal if so desired\tfor  another
\nperiod\tof 5 years subject to the condition mentioned in  r.
\n30 when the respondent had not prayed for any direction with
\nrespect\t to the option for a second extension of the  lease.
\nThe  contention is not sound.  The relief claimed after\t the
\nexpiry of the period of the first lease, which, according to
\nthe respondent, was also to be extended by two years, reads:
\n” and then, after the expiry of the period of five years the
\nlease  be renewed for a period of five years under  Rule  30
\n,of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1955″.
\nThe renewal was to be under r. 30.  Rule 30 itself  requires
\nextension  of  the  lease  with option\tin  the\t lessee\t for
\nobtaining another extension for an equivalent period.\tThis
\noption\tmust  be a term of the lease and therefore  must  be
\nincorporated  in  the  lease  at the  time  when  the  first
\nextension is granted.  The prayer therefore should be deemed
\nto  include  a prayer for an extension of 5 years  with\t the
\nnecessary  option.  Even if the prayer was not so made,\t the
\nHigh Court was competent to make the direction in accordance
\nwith  the  requirements\t of  the  proviso  to  r.  30.\t The
\ndirection  for renewal is, in our view. in  full  accordance
\nwith what the proviso requires.\n<\/p>\n
The  result is that the appeal fails and is  dismissed\twith
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
411<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Rajasthan vs Hari Shankar Rajendra Pal on 19 March, 1965 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 296, 1965 SCR (3) 402 Author: R Dayal Bench: Dayal, Raghubar PETITIONER: STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RESPONDENT: HARI SHANKAR RAJENDRA PAL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/03\/1965 BENCH: DAYAL, RAGHUBAR BENCH: DAYAL, RAGHUBAR GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) RAMASWAMI, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-206398","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Rajasthan vs Hari Shankar Rajendra Pal on 19 March, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Rajasthan vs Hari Shankar Rajendra Pal on 19 March, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1965-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-04T20:55:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Hari Shankar Rajendra Pal on 19 March, 1965\",\"datePublished\":\"1965-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-04T20:55:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965\"},\"wordCount\":3914,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965\",\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Hari Shankar Rajendra Pal on 19 March, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1965-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-04T20:55:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Hari Shankar Rajendra Pal on 19 March, 1965\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Rajasthan vs Hari Shankar Rajendra Pal on 19 March, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Rajasthan vs Hari Shankar Rajendra Pal on 19 March, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1965-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-04T20:55:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Rajasthan vs Hari Shankar Rajendra Pal on 19 March, 1965","datePublished":"1965-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-04T20:55:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965"},"wordCount":3914,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965","name":"State Of Rajasthan vs Hari Shankar Rajendra Pal on 19 March, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1965-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-04T20:55:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-hari-shankar-rajendra-pal-on-19-march-1965#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Rajasthan vs Hari Shankar Rajendra Pal on 19 March, 1965"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206398","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=206398"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206398\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=206398"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=206398"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=206398"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}