‘The Revisional Authdrity whilst setting aside the o of rejection has remanded|the case to the State Governm to grant a personal hearing and pass order on merits issue that needs considetation is whether the disposal application is required to be done in the light of provisi as were applicable when the application for renewal filed or whether the law ab it stands at the time of dis is to be considered In this connection it!may be sidled tha Vogspear, ed. declan of application involving, Smt Kevisional Authority has hel Government to conside: ees jaaemeae of the 2 Shera the applicability decisions, it appeara that the hie would be the law as prevailing at the time aJplicalion for renewed was fled. Two courses of therefare open to the Government namely (1) To the application as being time barred after giving opportunity of personal hearing (2) To condone the di the reasons are acceptable to the Government. AAs far as the marits on the question of condonat delay are concerned, iL may be slated that the Government in the past had condoned delay i 27 cas case il is relevant to mention Ural this part Sociedade Timblo Irmaos dre well established mine o who could have applied for renewal of mining lease in ® In fact the party had applied for renewal of twelvein 1987/88 pursuant to the enactment of Abolition Act = A list of the mining leases jresently held by the party is aside for perusal (4#/c) is a fact that in 1987 low grade siliceous iron ore had et and it was only at a later stage that the market some prospects. This being the case no prejudice is be caused if the delay is condoned. On the contrary, ment could get revenue towards t/surface rent for the period commencing fydhn 1987 if the delay is condoned. This case is also simi ef Smt. Vernckar, which has be t for decision. However in the instagft c: Timblo Irmaos have cight mining lgases undge age control at present. A decision yfill Miarciere nie by the Goverment on La questi Mel Pde Rion of SY already ; cy thfthe eMelusi Ro the present faking into account@fié fact that the femnapete s case for consideration he Goghritpent Mix ais —{AT.D' Souza} Senior Technical Assistant futupsAz approved ab pee-page lett. & Be Ue Cdinsy & pet “p ee spel, Bcc “saprton A prrsprfial was Aelaten vide — Lelie aft i ward 2 oFFerg NOTE Bi/s. Sociedade Timblo Irmaos Ltd Wy MF So to Indl, were holders of an ersiwhile oliging cone under T.C. No.88/3 rig an Riga QyS3 eS Ta, enactment of at Colomba of oY tall Pursypnt vl opis COMBE Sion was abolished and MMAMBREKc: 1957 and the rules made DMwisiongYcontained in Section 5 of the fie vege mibiing icase was extended by a further ef six Months and dRbguch all the erstwhile mining concessions sendefithe Abolitidg Act 87 expired on 21/11/87. Central Govt. keeping in view the difficulties faced by mining fn account of abave enactment wherein 596 mining concessions duc for renewal at one point of time, amended the MCR 1960 g the State Government to grant extension of time upto one id the expiry of mining leage. Subsequently, by an amendment 1/9/94 the Central Govt, ingerted a new provision empowering Govt. to condone the delay after the time limit prescribed in 1 Sociedade Timblo Irmaos Lid. represented by M/s. Sociedade ve #0 Indl. Ltd, by an application dt, 20/11/97tidd J Form in ef the aforesaid mining lease, By a letter dt, 5/8/98, theapplicants were called upon to furnish the reasons for subriitting s J Form. However, subsequently by a communication: 7/3/2001-the application was rejected by the then DIM a& being! barred, Aggrieved by the said communication, the party fled application before the Central Govt. which by its order dt. 22/6/208 aside the order of rejection and remanded the case back to the Govt. with a direction to affording an opportunity of hearing petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordange with law ( In the light of the said order of the Revisional esder the case # required to be disposed of. ‘The applicants have furnished the reasoi 's gyiaieration is dompit the light of pe 1 fogt¥Poewal was filed oF: clispggis to be considered 8 nay be Ytated that in a revision apy as were appli the law ast FERRE Government to consider the law applics not carrect and the law that was appli ‘was filed had to be considered (2!/c). In the ars that the law applicable would be appr he time when the application for renewal was aclion are therefore open to the Government nam © application as being time barred after giving an opPe .-rsonal hearing or (2) to condone the delay if the reasons are: Pr to the Government as done in other cases. ‘As far as the merits on the question of condonation of that the State Government in the: concemed, it may be stated condoned delay in 27 cases ( 47/c). In this particular case it to mention that M/s. Sociedade Timbla Irmaos representes Sociedade Fomento Ind. are well established mine owners. A mining leases presently held by the party is placed aside for pes It ie fact that in 1987 low grade siliceous iron ore had and it was only at & later stage that the market showed proia @) case no prejudice is likely, to be caused if the delay is \ | On the contrary, the Governinent could get revenue towards, ‘ent for the period commencing from 22/11/1987 if és condoned. This case is also similar to that of the same party, tof TLC. No, 19/SS which has been approved by the surface re + and this being'the case, there appears to be no objection to this case also for condonation of delay, if deemed proper. proposal of the applicants for condonation of delay is therefore for consideration and decision of the Government. Sehemay Kindly &| seen Yor offrovary Qubyew mally morn, bean. Unie aoe: em om en SN] DEO peed & Rial Ont beak eae 1 aig 8 vere oot \wa cane i wow dv redeco WS alerts AREY lenis 3 1 wa eat APP aas an orden, 8 cadence WAG Lad - jig fe mines, AWA sho peman CER, COM ye CHO. diss Dhargia: Ger Ww dake ter schon) 2 alice gt venesad egrmennty Lan Samy The Com Wi sompots® reg Ned ey appeal pts Sleek ee ya *The Department of Misies sought the opinion of this Department whether the condonation of dalay dn respect of three Jaanes can be gras ‘Shei Dayanand Z, Neugh inser T.C, No, 89/51, 4/1981 and 21/52, ‘tne beef facts axe avalible from the file of 7.0, No, 21/1951, Form J, ia at page 34/C to 38/C is application for Renewal of Mining: for & perlod of 20 years made by Power of Attorney Stitt Dayanand 2 oon behalf of all legal heirs of late Shri Jairam 8, Neugi with property by name known aa “Muciacho Tomb for paren of 86,36 # Cavrem of village, Quepem Taluka. By «pplicati¢thdafisi 22/8/05: 41/€ to 36/C Bel Dinst Tathat clalening to jp attorney tonal! legal [the concession holder submitted thelr repitesentiaition | Foquestigir to the delay, The contentions of the Departme no objecti ept the date afapplications® « ™ reasons stated at A on sald fiage, BUbstatod thaRpild application beyond the atipuinted pasion cfg /41/ as much it {6 tie! Howeyer, it fédatdathal Goveragpaat Js compatent to oo & oY & provlgyon’ igh G0) of MCR 1960 and im oof Revidleral Amthority a page 54/C to 60/C, wherein JEM apfiicallan fos renewal of leases is required to be di acoGhdancilgeth law prevailing at the time of filing applications: fromythe.s/% that the eald powat of attorney has nob produc thie, Deed! of succession wihluh has to be mace in the State of Gos, ‘Registrar to prove hereinship of ‘deceased. Same as above a 4, exist in the file No, 4/61 and 59/51: However, the Dep stated exact number of days of delay in the maters it tach case. eis submitted that lt da cardinal prineiple of law, thet pasty time when the time i suipulated by any enactment to do p and if the party fails and provision for candonation of applicable than the parly Js entitled to make Whe a condonation of delay explaining the delay that might be in cs of leases or in any ather case, The party making the app satisfy the authority to condone the delay and after getting the party the concerted authority can condena the delay, The opinion of thie deparimest at page 8/N to 9/NAuthority was discussed and tendered advice accordingly and the similar position stands retheatid in the present case as fir as applicability of said provision of Rule 1960, It is submitted that in this matter two aspects are involved that is ‘granting of condonation of delay and renewing of lease. In the matter of geanting of condonation of delay, the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court = India has taken liberal approach and it is precedent that the Government "=f Goa has also taken liberal approach in granting the condonation of delay (04/12) under tho saiel Rule, 1960. Tharefore (he Blate Covernant can grant ‘Ge delay Of the State Government ifgof batistled from the applicant. As far as renewing of lease ju te concerned the legal infil as Posted by department at their noting hus to be compfledpy the PEAR sexi on merits the State Government has to daéfile’ either peaivGo or [Sesitively to renew the lease or not considgrinigg the fia Phonon ved in the matter, eS fm view of above discussion/othersapattmcnt ite their own sion, in the Hoyer, Is slated UOT it fe Administrative of the rege the Brpdlimg thas to act as quast-judicial such cas y jie (hgees 6 Aegistant) ‘in the present case, the only short question referred pay” thy. for ose eadvines by ue Miiew Duyur (uel in Una: — Wiegul), " Whether an applicatinss dated 19/11/1996 of the nt Shri Dinar Tareas (an Attorney of all lopel heirs of late Me. B. Nougi, Campal, Pangli, original Mining Concession Hoides), ed to the Secretary (Mines), filed under Rule 24A(1) of the Mining on Rules, 1960, upon granting condonation of delay, can be ed by Uwe Guyeriaierit far veucwed of usiatinug Lounes? 2 In hia common Application dated 22/8/2005 (as placed in the Enked files) addressed to the Secretary (Mines), the said Applicant reference to their enilier application dated 19/11/ 1996 in the 4 “Form J" being an application for renewal of mining lease Feyweut of Uw yrowariled few of Rx.800/- in reapect of Use woh ae t i440 © we() TC No, 21 of 1951 siamed * Muidiacho Tomb”, an 86.36 ha nt Cavrets in Quepem (i) TLC! No 59 of 1951 named "Vaga Ghol’, an aren of 25: Molcornem in Quepem and (i) TC. No. 89 of 1981 named * Teinbecho Danger” an 99.3 Hn, at Cauram in Queper, respectively. 3. It is the contention of the Applicant that. the al Applicativa for reniwed of usisbuy Jobo fir period af 20 pour Li filed by one of the lopal heirs Shri Dayanantt Z, Nols! son of Inte B, Neugi who wan the concessionaire of the said Mining Leanes were yrembed dubia by die ervtwlally Purluyiuene Aduiitivretion, Applicant has alleged that although they ie to operations their family was undoryoing ote and ponnible to submit application for renowal prescribed period, for several renwans as of his 'taid Application. % RC 4. The Applivant haw furt aided thegitiring the fay fu ui a vio Amendment to Rule Qt (A) CRAY, the State mny condo: vo cle " i . nth eon matte bofore the expiry of the t fins placed on record that stich » Tonno had been made wheler Rule 24(A) (1) om: » legal ponition as an the date of ai ee Uiisk Cie Slated Guversanisnil baal Wier power le fn applicetion for renewal of mining lense macie after id ih wtth-rul (1), And further that the worde * application has beet made before the expicy of te that th clearly not existent on the Statute Bool, an the wame ittcorporated only on and after 17/1/2000, Thus, the Apy plwuclod Cat Cie riglil Go gel ste egeplivations far venuswed uf tn Pleg adjudicated on metits, ia a substaitive right, And euch right has to be adjudicated on the basin of law in force on the date woul ehWllk be Calan eoweanye amendment, which in mpecifically given a retrompoctive effect, the prosent case, the amendment han beer) erritd otut with 17/1/2000 has not heen given any retrospective effect. And, the said amendment clearly not applicable to their vase and epplicution wi rule, ndewe Applicant has prayed that their application for renewal of minire} ew considesed upon granting the candonation of delay in accordaiice with Gus Law i force tow ou Use dale of wucl pplication cise Lo be unube by them. And that for the purpose of condoning the delay the Applicant has placed reliance on several decisions of the Apex Court whereby the court ie campowered (u coud delay ly inevalaniy kus yruvinions uf wectiou 5 of the Indian Limitation Aet, 1963 which han boon discussed thereto. 5, Whereas, the Mining Dapartment in ite common Note dated 15/12/2005 (au placed ins Uke linked Pile at Play “A” “B" & “CO Law edmitted having accepted the Applicant's Application dated 19/11/1996 for renewal of mining lease that was duly nocompanied with the copies of shallan No.459, 460 and 461 dated 19/11/1996; and that as the Applicant did not furnish other particulars like yloiye-tax, particulars of the area mineral-wise etc., the Depnctunat Wie joo letter dated 40) 11/2005 Loud woul ue ssi ota lyase Waa yy veoven dae Satter further. tis the contention gf fie DRssMienCsfat the original documents pertaining to the said mnfing A traceable in their elice taud thurefine, ivy Levetlges- tpi. S yteweul fle ou Uae Basis of copiow of the documdljus base rr the Applicant anit eis Gating records fli ia ttetipto. cit ie. the contention of the Department ut Gr" divclous that the aforesaid soplic ay Asso lit WE 4 1996 hud been acknowledged Benior Geologist technical Assistant, they do not have eg CE oll Py PEP: dates af ay wuiel eqynaliénllon in “Fara J” foe OM AAPTonne to the Applicant. But the Department has socté Milas (Hpfiaid epplication in time-hurrod; aince the same has been PA SGoMyibe stiyutatod period winy 21/11/1988 However, due SepeMggnt wubmite that the State Government is competent to condane by virtue of the provisions of Rule 24-A (10) af MCR 1960, And fee State Gaveruuerl lua oypdorwd qeverd similar reuewel ‘Sons including that of Smt. Manikbei Pai Vernekar who had eached the Central Government beirig the Revisional Authority, The = Revviniouuad AutMusrity Lust i iky urd datid 22/6/2004 (which iw wl Zin the linked file) that the application for tenewal of mining lease “ith the law prevailing at the of Gling Ue application aud uvordingly wuyynted Uuali Uae cane Mmilar, it iy open to the Government to cansider the Applicant’s case Lines as appraved earlier juited to be disposed of in accordance 8) Peruaed the records mu made availnble in this fle ag well as the Hatked Glew and il iv uoted Uaeveli twas Ube au the frst plawwer, Wiese ie te about filing af tho Application dated 19/ 11/ 1996 by the legalhwir Shri Dayannnd Z. Nougi under Rule 24A(1) af the Min Convewwivns Rulow, 1960 (Lisreinafler vulled “wail MC Rulew, 1960" short), which the Department dontends that the said application is ti barred, but that delay can be candanod in view of the ame wruvisivua of wectiun 244 (10) of dur weit MC Rulow 1960, Thee Application dated 19/11/1996 haw heen duly signed by the legal heir Shri Dayanad as an attorney for all the legal heirs of Shui Zairam B, Neugi, the original concessionaire, which fact donied nor di stod bby the Department, All theue three applications: Placed on record in these linked Piles vide page 1/C ~2/C respective 7. Tt may be noted that from tlie Power al (vide page 45/0 ~ 50/0) wxevuated Ly (lis ln convessionaire, in favour of the Applinar Dinar Tarcar, it is observed that the, Neus died ox 7/12/1986 (uve: png 5 No.21 of 51), Whereas, the «, had filed the said renewal wlipuleled dele oh ot i renewal crm te Jie fil lod @OB yonen frm the date of atipul ng AMY) 1988 an in pocified «S Rule 24A deals with “Renewal of minis fot application for the reriowal of a mining | silts Goverment du Putty dy at Jonwt twelve witich the lease is due to expite, through sus Turther Sub-Rule (6) thereof provides that if an appli wal of 4 auitsings Lonwe reuate wilds Uae Ginsuee vesliorveed tr iat (1) in not disposed by the State Government befaes the date the loase, the period of that lense shall be deemed to have bees! by a fuser period Ull dus Stale Guverinuinil yawn order Similarly, Sub-Rulo (8) thereof empowers the State Governm extension of time upto a period of one your, for making of an soar Sul-Rule (1) eau (6) fow Ue Gawe veiw an provided Gon, Daman and Din Mining Concomsion Abolition and D Mining Lemso) Act, 1987, and that application in Form oI will made: by fore the expiry of the mining Teawe in terma of wootl nid Act, and in granting such extension of thmo tho Stato required to record its reasons in writing and it in subi cuuuitions. ws iLway thik GL Puxther, Sub-Rulis (9) Cheeqa @ © that if an application for firet renewal fas been made within the time seferred W inn Sub-Ruls (8)) or widhint Ue lime allowed ty Ue State Gevernment under the proviso to Sub-Rule (8), the periad of that lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a further period till the State Govermuenl pamwos urdeery Uasroen, 10. Further sub-Rule (10) of Rule 244 (au inserted by an smendment on 17/1/2000) provides that 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 Reet: usa liefyre Ue expisy (if Ue lon 11, On careful scrutiny of the tecordy vis-A-viginglyzing the Feevisious of Ue wail MC Rulow 1960, ty Wie cave jar Lapse uated Sst the said renewal application under Rule 24K Qk of dhe saidyyic Bailes, 1960 in respect of the said leuncn wragia 1 eft 1) ron ie. Giro Inyied uf 8 yours [frm Ue ulfuullied dell) of gehy Vein, 31/11/88) which came to be ackaowleMfigy itl Mines Department Sengwith renewal licence foo of Ro 964. |r Walt cag, M the very vame FP However, dhe Dap Ciggensisboniy Soe she wid xewewell EEeolication, but av late) naio/ ZOOS roq@Xied the Applicant to tui] deliiiet ¢ Giiind the void application aw Bs Ayia! wes wuypuwad Wy eausply witle Petthin £0 1 owe tA receipt of the nutice we is required under sub- Cy (ghot Rad 2 thevoor and thereby by vireue of Rule 26 (1) det Suite Raver iu eupoword Ui yu uid approyeizae anal shies Maitre refine or renew # mining lease over the whole of the ared@yplied for, and such order in required to be passed only sivieg Mb upyurtunity Uy dhe Applicunt of being led ia Uae uistter, Gicthef vuch an order is required to be recorded in writing and Heated to the party/applicant wy provided under said eub-Rule of Rule 26. Hence, in the progont enve uo such order appears to have Passed by the Department. In this context, it is to be seen. that the al documents are not traceable and the Department makes an sesecctal ins it Naina (il XX? un page 2/N litik Gls) dhl the preweut cease Ses have been teconstricted on the bei ef the dopuments, now filed by Applicant, and even then it is evident therefrom that the said renewal ation which waw inwutaplets wwe 19/11/1996 aud id wen uuale eplete in all material particulars/documents only after 10/11/2005 en the Department sought such dotaile/documents from the ant to complete the waid renewal application in all respects), theallowing or refusing to extend the mining lenin for further period = youy un squlied by tlie Appiticaait, 12, Tt may be noted that although the Department had the said renewal application even after 17/ 1/2000 ie, comitig inte: of tho amencied provisions of Rule 24A(10) of the waid MC Rules, ‘boon refijsed or rejected, laut atill it haw not ul Liem ve ‘undecided am discussed hereinaliove, In this regard, it is to be note nad filed the! renewal application u/s 24AQH 1988 eu ee the name has neither eckors up for pemuinyy ane apeepriede oedlew Unereuts the Applicant 19/11/1996 whucte Uae whipubate dace benny 91-111 id hot watinfy the requirements of 12 taanshy jeriad of time under 24A (1), And thet in why the Applicant in upping cands Unt delay caused is Gling ho weeil Appling Uys you Whereas, the amended provinionn of Rule 24M{10) vo Raid Rule! into effect from 17/1/2000 snd therefoog@he Afipligatt oom be responsible for the delay between he perigd Troe, 111s 171 1/2000, Thin in wo booatine, Ad TRigaaielenuoyty apnlications cod Md dotltind expediQ@sunly in the year: sen sTins if sg Rel uee ‘ainended. provisions & be no augstion @F ayplicnbiey lof the agit 2AAL1O) & Agiflionretiy cot ePantinn condoniatian und pMviniariat Law 19/11/1996 were conic fbvell wr fuaueedintel A engy 5 Atay Stemmisfirdor to attract the nifienclod provisions AMee cobgitions that arb to be watinflod with, are that ng tha condonation of delay by the State Go puting oP eps + renewal of mining lease when made after cls ph lienipréacritved in. wuberule (1), thabexniry of the Leake, Now, cpnaidering the above positian, i : roy av the Applicant having filed his application fat semua the of tas Foume (Le, Uae wlipulatee period boing 21/11) 1988 es ulated Department) which being 8 years Inter in point of time, the App case falls ousteide the purview of the provision of Rule 24A (1) 24A(10), Aud, Uuerefare, tie eumsrided peovinions uf Rule 24A(G nat all attracted to the Applicant's elaim an rightly contended ‘Applicant in his aforeshid Appliention dntod 99/8/2005, Whe sos Ayyiiveast Ue provivinton uf woutin 8 of elie the wame in required to be made toniended by Uh Limitation Act, 1963 1s not. at all applicable to the present o thin cnse in governed tuntder a special onactment where under thes wpoeiGie yrovivioas with respect Lo Gm Hssil willin whiels Ue required to be filed and processed with, Besides, it is to be nol24K @« She very scope, object and the applicability of this section is that this ection provides fur dhe exteuion uf thus in Ue case of appeals and spplications other than those under O. XXI, Civil PC. under the Gecumstances referred to in it, namely, that the appellant or applicant, Gee ee came tunny Le, wittinfiow Us court Uva Lis Lad “wallet cause” for {=e Gling the proceeding within| the period prevoribed. In such cases, the Sart in given the power to condone the delay and admit the appeal or Seeplication notwithstanding ite having been Giled after the expiry of shor, Newce NS eondired Avele along Silay So tie Bioeth nn, eS a a ae 14 Hence, althoiigh the Applicant filed his renewal Application beyond = prescribed porlod au contemplated untler Rule 4 A (1); and the Secartment having connidered|the same with prescribed licence igh far pewal of the mining lease together with accepting Bienen Uherwul, id in Wo be uradirtuad oat dae Ajeet Beeetece to be coveted within the ambit the provisions 1a 9A (6p kad (9)-6f the wid MO Rules,’ 1960. ge Paeesey provigted unidur! Rules. 244) (G)i.(8).rhud (T)eMbboc dG ladle igh stances it will. have 4o-b¢ prewirmisl thathphé Woonoe for Bewal of stining leave db deemed to have Bion oxi’ 1D the AMiionnt ax semplated under this provision Gf Sule WA (6) (8) and @Peeepectively : s xa NS. Now, in viow:hgiioNict (haf te Deplartned Su, acknowledgeding applicant's + PppeatMayag back om 19/11/2996 and Lh ujattin) cocumerite ay lateiae in the after got iil 2005 of havi ys Anplivunt's. original dacusments.af the 2 questi @enld lay ier comidened, due. weane., fat praiiinigy insgh ecw, PRA still Ho docisionthayibeen talcan githar to.raject or lgetib® of tlic Applicant. As such, the Department is elite exlinlinyiilic reiieily avaitidhlls Willer’ de Worse jpruvisioiun Rule 24aeyey" Spridte drdoy' theieéf, As ulsch! till ld Seite Oiverninent faded and fh) “and "(9Y"ab Wlaclidded "hérsvotore’ by" padi an saps ddhey ay Yethisiverd wilds hus sifidedwalil’ provisidas “UC MOR, | cnt the Fehewéil pplication if the Applidait, the mining lease in os ubinll bo deemed to-have heen extentle’ fit e-further petiotl as sh uty “Ue welll. MIC) Rules, 1960. Halu} Uanititantliy! Uw and'thé prdcedlsne’dd chopped 1p with Hogatd fo siniiliar iniitters st’ ail painted alat at im page’ 3/ Naf Whe litikted file No-21/51, it the competent authority’ bf'thie Deputtment/ State Govecnaicht to Recesuaty ordete dn the ‘afréanict application of the'applicant int the aédordingly, 8 ae to justify’ an ‘Action(dn WalAlF'd'the’ State rity willie’ Uo" alow ol RejOOL' a? val! ayialicaibi ad Ua RL Ee‘Proper in the facts and oircumntanons of tho case, However, Wwiluling amy welion in das! pruovedingw (if Utiw cue, i is fore Department to acertain and corifirm the position before the Hi High Court/Supreme Court /ae contended hy the Applicant ia! svplications dated 22-8-2005 ab *y” ant wey 40/C aul 4L/C of der Filo No.21/51 May like to sve for favour of approval / decision pleaso. a (i) io U.8geGal) ‘The note of the Department as ‘The issue involved is as regards we lonation. of-feliay in application for renewal of Mini wilt TQHo, 69/51, 4/1951 and T.¢ No, 21.1951 in ‘Talus ited to / ani io, Bupa 0} wy grant a s 2 or Stee tavolved. in. this reliance has also been placed on le bekring No, 5/26/2004+Minek, ‘The rity in another cave Witioh hax been pl Pages 60/6 to 24/0 in also applicaisle to cod 'X! mt page 54/C may be mitrred) @uiended rules 24(A)(10) of the rulea 1960, ‘The delay in co application by the State Government eantiot be the ground Totrospective operation. to the amendment oarrled out on 17) Hence, the amendment dated 17/01/2000 restricting the Giled before the expiry of the lease period will not apply to case as the application was fled much belbre the ament force and when the State Governinent hind the power to Gelay in filing the application of renewal of the mining lease. anid application has to be placed before the State deciding the application for consideration of condonation