Mining lease notice remained valid, but grant before expiry of the statutory application period was unlawful.

Where the governing rule itself fixed a seven-day period for mining lease applications, the notice inviting applications was not invalid merely because it did not repeat that period. The authority was still bound to keep the application window open for the full prescribed period, and could not lawfully grant the lease before that time expired. Preference for earlier or later applications under the relevant rule operated only after valid applications had been received within the statutory period. The notice was therefore valid, but the lease grant was premature and contrary to the Rules.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice inviting applications for grant of mining lease was invalid for not expressly stating the seven-day period for filing applications under Rule 72, and whether the grant of lease before expiry of that period was contrary to the Rules.

Analysis: Rule 72 required the notice to specify the date from which applications would be entertained and the area available for re-grant. The seven-day period for receipt of applications was already fixed by the rule itself, so omission to repeat that period in the notice did not invalidate the notice. However, Rule 72(ii) entitled all eligible applicants to file within the full seven-day period, and the authority could not lawfully conclude the grant before that period expired. Rule 9, which gives preference to earlier applications and permits preference to later applications for special reasons, operated only after valid applications received within the prescribed period had been considered.

Conclusion: The notice was valid, but the order granting lease on 6 May 1995 was premature and contrary to the Rules. The appellant was not entitled to relief.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the writ petitions was upheld because the decisive illegality lay in the premature acceptance of the application before expiry of the statutory application period, not in the notice itself.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the rule itself fixes the period for filing applications, omission to restate that period in the notice does not invalidate the notice, but a lease cannot validly be granted until the full prescribed period for receiving applications has elapsed.

---