D. P.  MOHAPATRA, CJ.

1. THE core question that arises for consideration in this case is whether in the judgment rendered on 19th of February, 1996 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3659 of 1996, Rameshwar v. Zila Adhikari/Prabhari Adhikari (Khanij) Fatehpur and others, (since reported in 1996 (2) AWC 681). This Court has laid down as a proposition of law that for grant of short-term mining permit under Chapter VI of the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (for short, the Rules), notice of not less than thirty days as laid down in Rules 27 and 27A of the said Rules has to be given and if so, whether that is the correct position of law?

2. THE factual backdrop of the case necessary for proper appreciation of the question may be stated thus : In pursuance of the notice dated 11.3.1996 issued by the District Magistrate, Fatehpur inviting applications for grant of mining permit for excavation of Moram from plot No. 10, area 294.10 acres of plot No. 21 of village Datauli by 18.3.1996, the petitioner Gopi Nishad submitted an application in the prescribed form MM-8 on 18.3.1996, filed treasury challan of Rs. 400 along with the application and deposited by bank draft and treasury challan a further sum of Rs. 3,25,000 on the same day. When all the applications received were examined, the rate quoted by the petitioner was found to be the highest and, therefore, the respondent No. 2, Officer Incharge Mines, Fatehpur, recommended the petitioner's case to the District Magistrate/District Officer, Fatehpur, for acceptance of the offer and grant of mining permit to him. When the matter stood thus, on 19.3.1996 one Ram Bali Kewat filed an application before the District Magistrate/District Officer, Fatehpur stating, inter alia, that the notice dated 11.3.1996 issued giving only seven days' time for submitting applications for grant of mining permit was contrary to the judgment of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3659 of 1996, Rameshwar v. Zila Adhikari and others (supra) and the action of the authorities may amount to contempt of Court. On receiving the said application, the District Magistrate/District Officer, Fatehpur deferred the matter. Faced with the inaction on the part of the District Magistrate/District Officer, Fatehpur in the matter, the petitioner submitted an application on 23.3.1996 bringing to his notice that the judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3659 of 1996 does not apply to grant of mining permit under Chapter VI of the Rules and the said judgment is not an impediment in the way of granting mining permit in his favour ; but the authority took no further action in the matter.

Since time was running out and the District Magistrate/District Officer, Fatehpur was not inclined to take a decision in the matter, the petitioner filed the writ petition against the District Magistrate/District Officer, Fatehpur, the Officer Incharge Mines, Fatehpur and the State of Uttar Pradesh seeking a writ of mandamus to the District Magistrate/District Officer, Fatehpur to grant mining permit to him in pursuance of the application dated 18.3.1996 (Annexure 2).

3. IN the counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Collector/Prabhari Adhikari (Khanij), Fatehpur the stand taken is that though Rules 27 and 27A of the Rules have no application for grant of mining permit, still the District Magistrate/District Officer, Fatehpur is bound by the Judgment of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3659 of 1996, Rameshwar v. Zila Adhikari and others (supra), in which it has been laid down, inter alia, that while granting mining permit public notice as prescribed in Rules 27 and 27A should be given in public interest. Therefore, the District Magistrate/District Officer, Fatehpur could not proceed further in the matter of grant of mining permit to the petitioner.

4. WHEN the case was taken up by the Division Bench and attention of the Bench was drawn to the judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3659 of 1996, Rameshwar v