Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order passed by the Secretary, Department of Geology and Mining, U.P., Lucknow dated 31.3.2009 whereby the Revision filed by the present writ petitioner under Rule 78 of the U.P. Mines & Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 has been rejected after recording a finding, that the allegation of illegal mining against Ashok Kumar Singh, respondent No. 4 in respect of lease granted in his favour on various plots within the jurisdiction of District Chandauli is not established from the material on the relevant of District Chandauli.

2. The Court while hearing the writ petition found that there has been concealment of material facts, qua earlier writ petitions, filed, issuance of orders by the district authorities, and the affidavits filed before this Court by the State authorities as well as by Ashok Kumar Singh. The Court passed a detailed order on 29.5.2009 which noticed all the relevant facts on record. It is worthwhile to reproduce the order which is as below :

“Facts stated in this writ petition and those which exist on records of the District-authorities qua dispute pertaining to the illegal mining by Ashok Kumar Singh, respondent No. 4 in this writ petition, in whose favour the impugned order has been passed by the Secretary, Department of Geology and Mining, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow dated 30th March, 2009, present a very sorry State of affairs. This Court will not mince words while recording that at every stage of the proceedings culminating in the impugned order, there has been miss-statement of facts and concealment of orders, which exist on record, by all the authorities from the level of the Secretary, District Magistrates of Chandauli and Varanasi, Assistant Geophysicist/Mining Inspector, Varanasi/Chandauli as well as by private respondent No. 4, Ashok Kumar Singh, with an apparent intention to confer illegal benefits upon respondent No. 4.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Afzal and another v. State of Haryana and others, JT 1996 (1) SC 328 and Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1995 SC 1795, has held that concealment of material facts/filing of false affidavit amounts to criminal contempt, inasmuch as it amounts to an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice.

Writ petitions are decided by this Court on the basis of affidavits filed by the parties, if there is apparent concealment of facts in the counter-affidavit filed by the State-authorities before this Court, which include the Secretary, District Magistrates and the Mining Inspector/Assistant Geophysicist, nothing can be worse. The purity of the river of justice has to be maintained at all cost and howsoever, high a person may be, if he pollutes the river, he has to be dealt with within the four corners of law, as situation so demands. The facts which are being recorded herein below by this Court will demonstrate that such situation has arisen in the facts of the present case and therefore, for unprecedented situations like one in hand, unprecedented solutions are required. This Court may first state the facts, in detail leading to the said situation.

Respondent No. 4, Ashok Kumar Singh was granted mining lease rights in respect of plot situate in Village Badgaavan, Tehsil Sakaldiha, District Chandauli for a period of three years under lease deed dated 19th February, 2007. Complaints were received against the respondent No. 4 qua illegal mining having been effected by him. Enquiry was got conducted on complaints and reports dated 12th January, 2008, dated 21st January, 2008, dated 19th February, 2008 and dated 7th April, 2008 were submitted categorically stating that respondent has indulged in illegal mining qua a total area of 10378 cubic metres, he had used duplicate copy of MM-11 passes for illegal transportation of about 6,600 cubic metres of sand and that 3,778 cubic metres of sand was transported without MM-11 passes. On the sa