Back
2005 Supreme(All) 427
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
KRISHNA KUMAR JAISWAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P 48270 Of 2004
Decided On : 03/09/2005
AKHILESH KALRA, S.P.SINGH
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, and the relevant government orders in the grant of mining leases, emphasizing transparency and openness in the process.
Headnote:
Mining Lease - U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 - Rule 9, Rule 9a, Rule 23, Rule 24, Rule 72 - The judgment discusses the legality of the mining lease granted in favor of respondent No. 4 on 21-6-2004, and the applicability of various rules under the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. It highlights the amendments made to the rules, the preferential rights of certain persons, the procedure for granting mining leases, and the requirement for notice before settling an area for lease.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 1-11-2004 dismissing the revision filed against the mining lease granted to respondent No. 4 on 21-6-2004. The petitioner argued that the grant of lease was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. The petitioner challenged the grant based on various government orders and amendments to the rules, claiming that the lease could not have been granted to respondent No. 4.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the grant of lease in favor of respondent No. 4 was not in accordance with the law and set aside the orders of the State Government and the District Magistrate. The court directed that steps be taken for the grant of mining lease of the area in question in accordance with the law expeditiously.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the mining lease granted to respondent No. 4, the applicability of various rules and government orders, and the entitlement of the parties to the mining lease.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the grant of lease in favor of respondent No. 4 was not in accordance with the law, as it was found to be in violation of the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, and the relevant government orders. The court also emphasized the requirement for transparency and openness in the grant of mining leases.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders of the State Government and the District Magistrate, and directed that steps be taken for the grant of mining lease of the area in question in accordance with the law expeditiously.
( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. P. Singh appearing for the respondent No. 4 and the learned standing counsel. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the parties the writ petition is being finally decided.
( 2 ) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 1-11-2004 passed by the State of Uttar Pradesh dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner challenging the mining lease dated 21-6-2004 granted in favour of respondent No. 4. It has been further prayed that the order dated 21-6-2004 and the lease deed executed in pursuance thereof be quashed.
( 3 ) BRIEF facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are :-An application was made by the respondent no. 4 dated 18-10-2001 before the District magistrate, Siddharth Nagar for grant of lease under the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession)rules, 1963 over plots No. 375, 386, 390, 400, 410, 377ka, 377kha, 385, 388, 395, 399, 401, 409, 412, and 414 area of 6. 00 acres situate in village Bargadwa, district siddharth Nagar. Petitioner in his application has stated that the area in which lease has been applied is bhumidhari plots and the owners of the bhumidhari land have given consent in writing in favour of respondent no. 4. No orders for grant of lease was issued by the District Magistrate on the said application. The respondent No. 4 filed writ petition No. 31172 of 2003 Nisar Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others which was disposed of by the Division Bench of this court vide its order dated 23-7-2003. The district Officer Siddharth Nagar was directed to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioner giving a reasoned order and after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned. After the order of this Court dated 23-7-2003 the District magistrate sanctioned the mining lease of ordinary sand for a period of three years with effect from 21-6-2004 to 20-6-2007. In pursuance of the order dated 21-6-2004 the lease deed was also executed on 21-6-2004 in favour of the respondent No. 4. In pursuance of the advertisement dated 24-2-2003 issued by the District Magistrate for auction of the lease the petitioner being the highest bidder was granted the mining lease of sand bearing area of Tahsil Naugarh and shauratgarh district Siddharth Nagar. After the approval of the State Government the lease was executed in favour of the petitioner on 17-6-2003. After the petitioner coining to know that the respondent No. 4 has started mining operation in the adjacent area of the petitioners lease area, a revision was filed by the petitioner under Rule 78 of the u. P. Minor Minerals (concession) Rules. 1963. The respondent No. 4 was issued notice in the revision who appeared and filed his objection and reply. The State Government after hearing both the parties dismissed the revision vide its order dated 1-11-2004.
( 4 ) THE case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the grant of lease in favour of the respondent No. 4 dated 21-6-2004 is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the u. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. It is stated that the Full Bench of this court vide its judgment dated 27-3-2001 in writ petition of Ram Chandras case held rule 9a and rule 53a of U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred"1963 Rules) as ultra vires. Special leave Petition was filed by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh challenging the full Bench decision of this Court dated 27-3-2001. After the judgment dated 27-3-2001 the State Government issued a Radiogram dated 30-3-2001 directing all the District magistrates not to grant any mineral con-cession. The Government order dated 13-6-2001 was issued directing grant of certain categories of mineral concession. In the Special leave Petition filed by the State of Uttar pradesh in the Apex Court an interim order was passed by the Apex Court on 10-9-2001 directing the parties to main
