By the Court.—Since the controversy involved in all the three writ petition is same and as such one common order is being passed in these three writ petitions.

2. Heard Sarvasri Mukesh Prasad, Sandeep Srivastava and Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials on record.

3. These writ petitions have been filed seeking quashing of the Government Order dated 31st May, 2010 by which the petitioners-mining lease holders, who are excavating sand (Balu, Moram & Bajari etc.) from their leased out area have been restrained from using machines for the purposes of excavating sand. The impugned Government Order dated 31st May, 2010 was issued in furtherance of an interim order passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court on 27th May, 2010 in Writ Petition No. 3879 (M/B) of 2010, Pradeep Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and others.

4. It has been categorically submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no report submitted by any of the competent authority, that is, Pollution Control Board, Director of Geology & Mining etc., which shows that the petitioners are causing any damage to the river course or they are involved in irregular or unsystematic mining activities by using heavy machinery. No report of the District Magistrates of Hamirpur, Bulandshahr and Kaushambi have been taken into account by the State Government or the Lucknow Bench of this Court to see that any illegality or irregularity is being committed by the petitioners. The petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and injury if they are restrained from using machines for excavation of sand from their lease hold-plots. The rainy season is approaching as a result of which the mining operation will remain stopped during this period for about 3-4 months due to which not only the petitioners-mining lease-holders would suffer, but the public at large, consumers of sand and the various agencies of the State and Central Governments, Construction Companies involved in laying down roads and highways as well as Builders engaged in public and private constructions activities would also immensely suffer. The prices of construction material would also escalate and the labourers involved in mining operations as well as Transporters would become jobless. The implementation of the Government Order dated 31.5.2010 would result in total stoppage of all the mining operations. These days there is already shortage of labourers due to continuance of Central and State Governments’ sponsored schemes and considering the demand of sand etc. from the construction sector, machines have to be used for excavation of sand. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the modern world where in laying down roads, constructing multi storied buildings and bridges, highways, machines are being widely used and even the Government could not be able to achieve the goal of laying 24 Kilometres high way and roads per day, instead due to shortage of construction materials it may reduce to 10-12 Kilometres and what to say about the repairs of already existing roads and highways. Development of any country is assessed by the length and net of the roads.

5. In the present petitions, a material legal question has been raised that whether under the law of precedent, the State Government is required to ensure compliance of the directions passed in an interim order or it is bound by the binding and unchallenged final judgments of the Courts having the same Bench strength or the specific provisions contained in the amended Rule which do not prohibit use of machinery in excavation of sand, except with certain restrictions to be followed and following certain guidelines regarding maintenance of clean environment and not disturbing the course of the river and other natural factors. No such element is found in the present cases.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were granted mining leases in respect of