By the Court.—The present writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.12.2005, which was issued in pursuance of amended Rule 10 of U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963. Further issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the amended Rule 10 of U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963, as ultra vires, which was incorporated in the Rules by twenty six amendments. Further issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to renew the mining lease of the petitioner for Lot No. 5 of Arazi No. 1 of Village Pardrach, Tehsil-Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra in pursuance of the order passed by the learned appellate authority dated 16.6.2006.

2. The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner by means of the present writ petition challenging the legality and validity of Rule 10 of the Rules, 1963, which was amended by (Twenty Six Amendment) Rules, 2004 vide notice dated 26.12.2005, which was issued under the aforesaid amended Rule by office of Respondent No. 2 by which he had consolidated the entire mining plot measuring area about 130 acres for grant of mining lease to a single person of his choice, which is totally unconstitutional and against the ambit and spirit of Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development ) Act, 1957, under which the aforesaid Rules of 1963, was enacted. The petitioner is engaged in the profession of excavation of Minor Mineral such as Moram and Sand, from river of District Sonebhadra and this is the only livelihood of the petitioner. Throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh the excavation of Minor Mineral is governed by U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963, which is enacted under Section 15 of the Central Act known as Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. According to Rules 1963, river bed side mineral such as, sand, moram is also one of the ‘Minor Minerals’ defined under the aforesaid Rules of 1963, as such, the said Rule is applicable.

3. In the aforesaid rule there are two provisions of granting of concession. The first one is mining lease which comes under Chapter II of the aforesaid Rules 1963 and second one is auction lease which comes under Chapter IV of the aforesaid Rules, 1963. It is provided that the mining concession cannot be granted by way of Chapter II and Chapter IV simultaneously, it means that if Chapter II is applicable the procedure laid down under Chapter IV of the Rules shall not be applicable. On 30th December, 2000, the entire area of Uttar Pradesh was declared for the grant of Mining lease and in pursuance of aforesaid Government Order, State Government withdraws auction lease system and imposed mining lease system according to Rule 24 of the Rules for the purposes of granting mining lease. In pursuance of the aforesaid Government Order, the availability of the area were further declared under Rule 72 of the Rules 1963 by various District Magistrate for grant of mining lease and same procedure was adopted by the office of the District Magistrate, Sonebhadra. On 19.1.2001 a public notice was issued by which applications were invited from the public at large for setting the various vacant mining area of District Sonebhadra by way of mining lease provided under Chapter II, of Rules 1963. The said notice clearly goes to show that applications were invited on prescribed proforma that is Form MM-I. In pursuance of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner moved an application on duly prescribed proforma for Lot No. 5 Arazi No. 1 of Village Pardrach, Tehsil Robertsganj, District-Sonebhadra on 27.1.2001 after completing the all requisite formalities. There was no other application neither of general category nor the category provided under Chapter 9-A of the Rules 1963 (at that time), as such, the petitioner was sole applicant for the aforesaid mining lot, mentioned above. The petitioner was granted the aforesaid lot for the purposes of mining lease by the respond