Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2017–Rule 28–Termination of lease deed–Justification–After the directions were issued to decide the matter afresh again, the inspection was carried, and the demand was reduced–Despite the petitioner had deposited the amount of demand, respondents refused to restore the mining lease–Justification–Contention of the respondents that the earlier termination order continued to survive is inherently self-contradictory–After the demand was reduced, the very foundation of the earlier proceedings were neither final nor unquestionable–The earlier demand ceased to have any operative existence–Reasoning assigned by the Revisional Authority are also equally unsustainable–Case of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled for restoration of the lease for illegal mining, is not a question for consideration before this Court–Directed to restore the mining lease.
