Back
2006 Supreme(All) 3167
R. P. MISRA AND SHISHIR KUMAR, JJ.
Arvind Agrawal
versus
State of U.P. and Ors.
C. M. W. P. No. 47400 of 2006
Decided On : 5-12-2006.
Satya Prakash Singh and Rajesh Kumar Singh, for Petitioner; Alok Kumar Singh, J. J. Munir, Q. H. Siddiqui, Vijay Gautam, S. C., for Respondents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that mining leases can only be granted in conformity with Rule 72 of the U. P. MMC Rules, 1963, and applications filed prior to the date of notification and not in compliance with the rule are liable to be rejected.
Headnote:
Mining Lease - Rejection of Application - U. P. MMC Rules, 1963 - Rule 72
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the impugned order dated 7-8-2006 and for a mandamus directing the District Magistrate to grant a mining lease. The petitioner's application for mining lease was submitted on 8-8-2003, and despite recommendations and a court order, the District Magistrate did not decide on the application. The petitioner filed a contempt application, alleging non-compliance with the court's order. The District Magistrate obtained a report, issued notices, and rejected the petitioner's application on the grounds of prior application and non-compliance with Rule 72 of the U. P. MMC Rules, 1963.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's application was justified as it was filed prior to the date of notification and did not comply with Rule 72 of the U. P. MMC Rules, 1963. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that a mining lease can only be granted in conformity with Rule 72.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the petitioner's mining lease application, non-compliance with Rule 72 of the U. P. MMC Rules, 1963, and the District Magistrate's actions in issuing notices and rejecting the application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of the application was justified as it was filed prior to the date of notification and did not comply with Rule 72 of the U. P. MMC Rules, 1963. The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedure for granting mining leases to maintain transparency and prevent favoritism and bias.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims and discharged the interim order.
2. The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that on 8-8-2003 the petitioner submitted an application for grant of mining lease in plot No. 332 in an area of 2 acres situate in Village Barokhar, tehsil and district Banda for excavation of sand stones (Khanda, Boulder and Gitti). The application of the petitioner was submitted for grant of mining lease under Chapter-II of U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (in short the U. P. MMC Rules, 1963). The District Magistrate after having the application asked for a report from the S. D. M. /Geologist. A copy of the same has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The Divisional Forest Officer gave a No-Objection Certificate for grant of mining lease vide its letter dated 5-9-2003. On 27-9-2003 the Assistant Geologist has also submitted a report indicating therein that the aforesaid plot can be awarded for mining lease and has recommended the case of the petitioner. After the report submitted by the authorities, the mining lease was required to be granted by the District Magistrate, Banda but the matter was kept pending and the District Magistrate has not passed any order although the requirement was complete on 27th September, 2003.
3. By 20th amendment in U. P. MMC. Rules, 1963 was inserted on 27-8-1994 and by means of the aforesaid amendment, Rule 72 was inserted in the U. P. Minor and Minerals Concession Rules, 1963. Rule 72 provides inviting application on availability of area for re-grant on mining lease to be notified. On 8-11-2004 the District Magistrate, Banda issued notice inviting applications for grant of mining lease regarding various other areas including the area of plot No. 332 of village Barokhar Khurd. Copy of the same has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The application filed by the petitioner was not being considered by respondent No.2 deliberately though the same was filed prior to the amendment inserted in the rules. The formalities which were required to be done, were made by the petitioner prior to the notification issued by respondent No.2. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court bearing No. 52118 of 2004 and the said writ petition was disposed of finally vide its order dated 22-8-2005 and this Court has passed the following order :
(1) Heard counsel for the petitioner and Standing counsel for the respondents.
(2) According to the petitioner, he had filed an application for grant of mining lease on 8-8-2003 before respondent No.2. As it has not been decided he has filed the present writ petition.
(3) In the circumstances of the case it would be appropriate that the petitioners application dated 8-8-2003 may be decided by the concerned respondent by a reasoned order at an early date, and if possible, within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner along with certified copy of this order will also file a copy of his aforesaid application, other necessary documents and a duly stamped self-addressed envelope. The concerned respondent after taking decision will communicate the same to the petitioner.
(4) With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.
4. From the perusal of the aforesaid order it was directed that the application of the petitioner be considered within a period of three months but as the matter was kept pending and was not decided in spite of the order passed by this Court, a Contempt Application No. 2677 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner. The said contempt application was decided on 13-7-2006 and the Honble Court was pleased to pass the following order.
"Heard learned counsel fo
