( 1 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent-State government in respect of the grant of mining lease to the respondent No. 3 over plot no. 29/3, Area 30 Acres, Buksha Khadar, tehsil Mahauda, District-Hamirpur, by the impugned order dated 2-4-2004 and the consequential lease dated 5-4-2004. The petitioner contends that the right of the petitioner to apply for the aforesaid area has been arbitrarily taken away by the respondents by not resorting to publication of any notice making the land available to the public at large and, as such, the petitioner and such alike persons have been denied their right to participate in the proceedings for grant of mining lease. The order has been challenged on the aforesaid grounds and also that none of the ingredients of Rule 68 of the Minor Minerals Concession Rules 1963 exist so as to warrant exercise of power therein by the State Government in favour of the respondent No. 3 whose earlier lease had been cancelled and facts with regard to which have been set out in detail in the report of the District Magistrate dated 28-2-2004. The petitioner has further urged that in the event the order dated 2-4-2004 is set aside, the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 3 being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3367 of 2005 will not survive to the extent the relief claimed for in the present writ petition.

( 2 ) WHEN the instant writ petition was moved initially, we had directed the present writ petition to be listed along with the writ petition No 3367 of 2005 after hearing learned Senior Counsel Shri S. P. Gupta assisted by Shri Shubham Agrawal on the previous occasion. The matter was listed on 1-4-2005 and 6-4-2005 on which date Shri c. L. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3-Bachchi Devi, sought time to file reply to the instant writ petition, which was granted, and the matter was posted for 13-4-2005. On 13-4-2005 shri Y. K. Saxenaput in appearance on behalf of Smt. Bachchi devi the respondent No. 3, who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3367 of 2005 and a short-counter affidavit along with an application has been filed putting contest to the present writ petition.

( 3 ) WE have heard Shri Pankaj Mithal and shri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Yogesh Saxena for smt. Bachchi Devi, who is respondent No. 3 herein and the petitioner in writ petition No. 3367 of 2005.

( 4 ) THAT facts as borne out from the records are that respondent No. 3-Smt. Bachchi Devi was favoured with an order dated 31-3-1997 for grant of lease for the same plot of land referred to here in above. The writ petition was filed against the same in which an interim order was passed staying the settlement of the lease in favour of smt. Bachchi Devi. The interim order according to the report of the District magistrate dated 28-2-2004 became inoperative on 5-5-1997 but vide Government order dated 9-5-1997 all applications which were received including the application of the petitioner for grant of lease were directed to be treated to have been cancelled. The respondent No. 3-Smt. Bachchi devi was, accordingly, intimated about the same vide letter dated 12-5-1997 to the effect that her application for grant of lease was cancelled and the petitioner should immediately seek refund of the amount deposited by her. Another writ petition had been filed with regard to Govt. Order dated 9-5-1997 in which the direction given to settle the lease by permit was quashed with a further direction to settle the lease by permit was quashed with a further direction to settle the leases in accordance with law. Accordingly, the areas meant for mining operation including the plot in question was advertised vide advertisement dated 16/19-6-1997. It has also been brought on record that no applications arrived in respect of the plot in question, as a result whereof it was re-advertised on 15-11-1997. Again no application was received and the claim of the respondent No. 3 which she had made vide re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document