JUDGMENT

Kirpal, J.-The appellant had, under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (for short the Rules ) on 17th September, 1977, been granted a lease of a plot of land admeasuring 10 acres in Mahoba Tehsil, Hamirpur District. This lease was for a period of ten years and on the basis thereof the appellant set up a granite unit.

2. The aforesaid lease was extended from time to time. The tenure of the lease having expired a public notice dated 31st March, 1995 was issued by the District magistrate, Hamirpur for grant of a fresh lease for the area which was being exploited by the appellant. This notice was published on 2nd April, 1995 and was issued under Rule 72 of the Rules. Rule 72, as it stood at the relevant time, was as under :

"Availability of area for re-grant to be notified-

(i) If any area, which was held under a mining lease under Chapter II or on reserved under Section 17-A of the Act, becomes available for re-grant on mining lease the District Officer shall notify the availability of the area through a notice inviting applications for grant of mining lease specifying a date, which shall not be earlier than thirty days from the date of the notice and giving description of such area and a copy of such notice shall be displayed on the Notice Board of his office and shall also be sent to the Tehsildar of such area and the Director.

(ii) The application for grant of mining lease under sub-rule (1) shall be received within seven working days from the date specified in the notice referred to in the said sub-rule. If, however, the number of applications received from any area is less then three, the District Officer may further extend the period for seven more working days and if even thereafter, the number of applications remains less than three, the District Officer shall notify the availability of the area afresh in accordance with the said sub-rule.

(iii) An application for grant of mining lease for such area which is already held under a lease or notified under sub-rule (1) of Rule 23 or reserved under Section 17-A of the Act and whose availability has not been notified under sub-rule (1), shall be premature and shall not be considered and the application fee thereon, if paid shall be refunded."

3. According to Rule 72 (ii), the applications for the grant of a mining lease were to be received within seven days from the specified date. It is common ground that the specified date as per the aforesaid notice was 2nd May, 1995 and applications for the grant of mining lease could be filed between 2nd May, 1995 and 9th May, 1995.

4. It appears that on the very first date, i.e., 2nd May, 1995, nine applications including that of the appellant, for the grant of the mining lease were filed. The District Magistrate vide his order dated 6th May, 1995, informed the appellant that his application for grant of the mining lease had been approved. The appellant was required, in token of acceptance of the terms of the lease, to submit an agreement along with a treasury challen of Rs. 30,000/- to enable the execution of the lease deed. According to the appellant the needful was done and the stamp papers worth Rs. 30,065/- were furnished to the office of the Mines Officer on 12th May, 1995 so as to enable the District Magistrate to execute the lease deed in favour of the appellant.

5. The District Magistrate did not, however, execute the lease deed. Thereupon, the appellant filed writ petition No. 15290/95 seeking a writ of mandamus requiring the court to direct the respondents therein to execute the lease deed in the appellant s favour pursuant to the sanction communicated to the appellant vide order dated 6th May, 1995.

6. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition the District Magistrate, Mahoba, issued a fresh notification dated 30th May, 1995. According to the respondents the State Government had arrived at the conclusion that the first notic