2006 Supreme(All) 727
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. K. Agrawal, Saroj Bala
RAJAN NISHAD - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 9874 Of 2006
Decided On : 03/07/2006
The court established that the petitioners could not derive any benefit from the mining lease sanction under Rule 9-A, which had been declared ultra vires.
Headnote:
Mining Lease - Preferential Right - U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 - Rule 9-A
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the cancellation of mining lease sanction and the direction to include their plots for fresh settlement. They claimed entitlement to execute the lease and carry out mining work based on the sanction/approval order dated 31. 3. 2001.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' lease sanction was under Rule 9-A, which had been declared ultra vires by the court. The court held that the petitioners could not derive any benefit from the sanction order dated 31. 3. 2001 and dismissed the petitions.
Issues: Validity of cancellation of mining lease sanction, entitlement to execute the lease and carry out mining work, interpretation of Rule 9-A of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioners' lease sanction was under Rule 9-A, which had been declared ultra vires by the court. The court held that the petitioners could not derive any benefit from the sanction order dated 31. 3. 2001.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.
( 1 ) IN all these four writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the notice dated 17. 1. 2006 issued by the District Magistrate/collector, Allahabad, respondent no. 2, by which applications have been invited for grant of mining lease in respect of sand for a period of three years for the vacant areas mentioned therein and separate orders dated 23. 11. 2005 passed by the District Magistrate/collector, Allahabad, cancelling the sanction/approval dated 31. 3. 2001 regarding grant of lease in favour of the petitioners.
( 2 ) AS the counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parties in all the writ petitions, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, all the writ petitions are being heard and finally disposed of at the admission stage itself in accordance with the Rules of Court.
( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the present petitions are as follows:-According to the petitioners, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued an order on 30. 12. 2000 declaring the entire area in the State of U. P. for grant of mining lease and directing the District Magistrates of various districts in the State of U. P. to declare the availability of the mining area under Rule 72 of the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") and settle it under Chapter II of the Rules. Pursuant to the aforesaid Government Order, the District Magistrate, Allahabad issued a public notice on 20. 2. 2001 inviting applications from the public at large for settling the vacant mining area in the district of Allahabad for sand. All the petitioners applied for grant of mining lease in respect of various plots as follows:-Writ Petition No. Name of the petitioner Details of area Date of application 5522 of 2006 Rajan Nishad Khand No. 3/21, Zone No. 3, Tehsil Karchhana, Allahabad 22. 2. 2001 babboo Nishad Khand No. 3/22, Zone No. 3, Tehsil Karchhana, Allahabad 22. 2. 2001 5523 of 2006 Rajendra Kumar Nishad Khand No. 3/13, Zone No. 3, Tehsil Karchhana, Allahabad 22. 2. 2001 kanhaiya Lal Khand No. 3/12, Zone No. 3, Tehsil Karchhana, Allahabad 22. 2. 2001 9872 of 2006 Anand Kumar Khand No. 3/23, Zone No. 3, Tehsil Karchhana, Allahabad 22. 2. 2001 rajendra Kumar Khand No. 3/27, Zone No. 3, Tehsil Karchhana, Allahabad 22. 2. 2001 9874 of 2006 Dinesh Chandra Khand No. 3/20, Zone No. 3, Tehsil Karchhana, Allahabad 22. 2. 2001 monu Nishad Khand No. 3/32, Zone No. 3, Tehsil Karchhana, Allahabad 22. 2. 2001 alongwith the applications the petitioners, in each of the writ petitions, have also filed the caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar concerned. In the applications, the petitioners have mentioned that they are Mallah (boatmen) by caste and they are engaged in the traditional profession of taking out sand from the river bed and carrying on their livelihood by the earnings therefrom.
( 4 ) THE District Magistrate, Allahabad sanctioned the grant of mining lease to each of the petitioners vide separate order dated 31. 3. 2001. Each of the petitioners had deposited 50% of the lease money and other requisite amount. However, the lease deed had not been executed nor the petitioners had started any mining operation. According to the petitioners, they were making consistent efforts to get the lease deed executed and permission to carry out the mining operation of the respective plots but without any result. According to the petitioners, in the case of Ram Chandra v. State of U. P. and others, 2001 (1) S. A. C. 475, a Full Bench of this Court had declared the provisions of Rule 9-A of the Rules as ultra vires. The State of U. P. preferred a Special Leave Petition in which the Apex Court had directed status quo as on the date of the order (10. 9. 2001) to be maintained. The petitioners claim that in view of the interim order passed by the Apex Court on 11. 9. 2001 directing for maintaining status quo, they are entitled to do the mining work in pursuance of the sanct