S. R. SINGH AND LAKSHMI BIHARI, JJ.

( 1 ) PETITIONER herein seeks the relief of certiorari to quash the Government Order dated 31. 3. 2002 (Annexure-1) and also for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 not to grant any extension of the term of mining lease granted to respondent No. 4 beyond 15. 4. 2002 by which the District Magistrate extended the period of lease upto 30. 4. 2002 in continuation of the earlier order dated 15. 3. 2002. The three-year term of the mining lease granted in favour of the 4th respondent came to an end by efflux of time on 5. 4. 2001.

( 2 ) INDISPUTABLY, under the mining policy of the Government, mining leases for minor mineral prior to 27. 8. 1994 used to be granted by auction/tender-cum-auction as provided in Chapter IV of the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 but by means of a G. O. dated 27. 8. 1994, it was decided to grant mining lease for operating minor minerals by inviting applications under chapter II of the Rules. But by means of G. O. dated 16. 3. 1999, the auction/tender-cum-auction system as provided in Chapter IV was again Introduced. However, it could not last long and by g. O. dated 30. 12. 2000, the system of grant of mining lease as provided under Chapter II of rules was again brought about. Rule 9a of the rules, as substituted by Notification No. 5471/18. 12. 1994-10-9 T. C. dated 22. 2. 1995, which visualised that notwithstanding Rule 9, preference shall be given to socially and educationally backward classes of citizens engaged in carrying on the occupation of excavation of sand or morram as a profession and who are residents of the same district came to be struck down by a Full Bench of this Court in Writ petition No. 256 (M/b) of 1997, Ram Chandra v. State of U. P. and others, vide Judgment dated 27. 3. 2001. However, by G. O. dated 13. 6. 2001, it was made clear that the leases executed prior to 27. 3. 2001 would not be affected by the judgment. By means of public notice dated 8. 3. 2001, the area in question had been notified for grant of lease under Chapter II of the rules. But by radiogram dated 30. 3. 2001 it stopped concession of minor minerals through lease/patta with immediate effect till further orders. Subsequently, by G. O. dated 15. 12. 2001, Government decided to extend the term of the leases which had already expired by one month on terms and conditions stipulated therein. By means of an amendment application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 15. 4. 2002. It brooks no dispute that Government order dated 31. 3. 2002, came to be issued in continuation of Government order dated 15. 12. 2001 and 8. 3. 2002 in the purported exercise of power under Rule 68 of the U. P. Minor Minerals [concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the rules ). These Government orders, it would transpire, were issued in view of the fact that the Full Bench of this Court in Writ Petition no. 256 (M/b) of 1997, Ram Chandra v. State of U. P. and others, had struck down Rule 9a inserted by 28th Amendment Rules, 1994 providing for preference in the matter of grant of leases in favour of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens traditionally engaged in the vocation of excavating sand or morrum. The State Government preferred Special Leave petition (In short the S. L. P.) before the Supreme Court against the Full Bench decision of this court but lateron, retreated by applying for withdrawal of the appeals and the Apex Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn vide order dated 8. 1. 2002, however, some private persons had also filed S. L. Ps. against the judgment of the Full Bench and the S. L. Ps. filed by private persons are hanging fire in the Apex Court and their Lordships in the Supreme Court had initially passed an interim order of status quo which was subsequently modulated to the extent that the Government would be at liberty to amend the Rules.

( 3 ) THE term of the mining lease granted in favour o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document