Back
2009 Supreme(All) 3884
[2010(2) ADJ 399 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : V.M. SAHAI AND Y.C. GUPTA, JJ.
AJAY KUMAR SINGH ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 67371 of 2009, decided on 21st December, 2009)
Counsel :
Shyam Narayan Pandey for the Petitioner; Alok Kumar Singh and Vishnu Pratap, S.C. for the Respondents.
Headnote:U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963—Rule 14(3)(4)—Mining lease—Terms of renewal—Commence from date on which renewed mining lease deed was executed, or from next date of expiry of earlier lease—Under Rule 14(4) date of commencement of renewed mining lease, would be date on which renewed mining lease deed had been executed, or date of actual commencement of mining operations, whichever is earlier—Date of commencement of renewed mining lease, would be date on which renewed mining lease deed had been executed—And, petitioner was entitled to carryout mining operation for a full period of five years—Since petitioner operated mining lease only for a period of one year, three months and fourteen day, out of total period of five years, due to inaction, or fault of respondents, therefore, petitioner is entitled to complete his full period of five years of mining lease, and for that limited period, mining lease-deed of petitioner is liable to be extended—Impugned order of D.M. quashed—And, respondents directed to allow petitioner to operate mining operation for a full period of five years, subject to adjustment of period during which petitioner has already operated. [Paras 14, 20 and 21]
Result; Petition Allowed.
By the Court.—The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether on renewal of mining lease, the term of renewed mining lease would commence from the date on which the renewed mining lease deed was executed or from the next date of expiry of earlier lease?
2. The petitioner was granted mining lease on 27.1.1999 for a period of five years, which was to expire on 26.1.2004. As per the provision of Rule 6-A of Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules 1963 (in brief the Rules), the application for renewal of lease had to be made by the lease holder six months before the expiry of lease. The petitioner made an application on 2.7.2003 for renewal of his mining lease. This application remained pending and meanwhile the lease period of petitioner came to an end on 26.1.2004. The District Magistrate, Mirzapur did not pass any order on the renewal application and the order was passed after more than three years. The order for renewal of mining lease was passed by the then District Magistrate, Mirzapur on 19.8.2006 and the order was issued on 21.8.2006 granting renewal of mining lease for a period of five years. This order was complied by the respondents on 12.10.2007 when renewed mining lease deed was executed on 12.10.2007 till 26.1.2009. It was also mentioned in the renewed mining lease deed that the petitioner had to pay annual dead rent in advance on 27.1.2004, 27.12.2005, 27.12.2006 and 27.12.2008. Since the earlier mining lease of the petitioner had expired on 26.1.2004 he could not work or carry out mining operation for a period of more than three years. The petitioner made a representation to the District Magistrate, Mirzapur on 25.3.2008 that the period of his mining lease be extended so that he may carry out mining for a full period of five years and the period from 27.1.2004 to 11.10.2007 be not counted in the renewed mining lease of five years. It was also stated in the representation by the petitioner that after the expiry of mining lease on 26.1.2004 the petitioner did not carry out any mining.
2. Since the representation of the petitioner was not decided by the District Magistrate, Mirzapur, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19149 of 2008 Ajay Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and others which was disposed of by this Court on 11.4.2008 directing the District Magistrate to pass appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the District Magistrate on 6.11.2008 and in the impugned order the District Magistrate has relied upon the Government letter dated 1.5.2008 and held that the period of renewed mining lease deed cannot be extended. It is this order dated 6.11.2008 which has been challenged in this petition.
3. We have heard Sri Shyam Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Alok Kumar Singh and Sri Vishnu Pratap, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the renewal of mining lease of the petitioner was not granted because of inaction and dereliction of duty on the part of the District Magistrates, Mirzapur, who were functioning as District Magistrates, Mirzapur from 2.7.2003 to 21.8.2006 and further from 21.8.2006 till 12.10.2007 and in not performing the duties entrusted to them by law under the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules 1963 and Government Orders dated 16.10.2004 and 27.5.2005. It was further urged that the letter dated 1.5.2008, as mentioned in the impugned order, of the State Government cannot reduce the period of mining lease and cannot travel beyond the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and Rules 1963. It is lastly urged that the respondents are charging dead rent for five years, from the date of expiry of earlier mining lease but are not permitting the petitioner to carry out mining operation for five years as provided by Rule 14.
5. Learned Standing Counsel has produced t
