A. N. Varma, J.

1. The petitioner is challenging an order passed by the District Magistrate, Fatehpur in the purported exercise of powers under Rule 14 of the U. P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 directing the forfeiture of Rs. one lac deposited by the petitioner towards the grant of mining lease under Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules. The contention is that under Rule 14 all that could be forfeited is the application fee and not the amount deposited by the grantee towards the mining lease.

2. It is alleged that in pursuance of the grant no lease was executed because of certain alleged failure on the part of the authorities. Nor did the petitioner excavate the sand. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is asserted that the lease was not executed because of the failure of the petitioner to supply general stamps of Rs. 9500/- and even if he did not carry out the mining operations the respondents could not be blamed for it. Consequently the amount of Rs. one lac deposited by the petitioner was liable to be forfeited under Rule 14.

The fact that the petitioner did not operate the mine seems to be established beyond doubt. The question is : what is