By the Court.—This proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted in the public interest for espousing the interest of persons residing near the bank of the river Yamuna in Tehsil Kalpi, District Jalaun. The fourth respondent, in response to a notice dated 21 April 2008 issued by the District Magistrate under Rule 72 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (the Rules) applied for the grant of a mining lease in respect of plot Nos. 4 and 5 of Gata No. 240, situated at Village Himanpura, Tehsil Kalpi, District Jalaun for a total area of 80 acres and in respect of mining plot in Gata No. 79/1 of Village Sankarpur, Tehsil Jalaun, District Jalaun, admeasuring 10.84 acres. On 24 October 2008, the District Collector submitted a recommendation to the State Government for the grant of its approval for a mining lease in respect of Plot No. 4 Gata No. 240 in terms of the Government Order dated 16 October 2004 under which prior approval of the State Government was required where the value of the lease was in excess of Rs. 5 lacs. A similar recommendation was made by the District Collector on 24 October 2008 in respect of plot No. 5 of Gata No. 240. No decision was taken by the State Government thereon.

2. In the meantime, a judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court on 27 February 2012 in Deepak Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, (2012) 4 SCC 629, by which a direction was issued to the State Governments and to the Union Territories for implementing the recommendations made by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests, in consultation with the States and the Union Territories, making it mandatory to have mining plans before the grant of mining leases. The Supreme Court directed all the States and the Union Territories to give effect to the recommendations made by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) in a report of March 2010 as embodied in the Model Rules of 2010 which have been framed by the Ministry of Mines within a period of six months.

3. On 31 May 2012, a declaration was issued by the State Government, by which the provisions of Chapter IV of the Rules were made applicable so as to declare that in the State of Uttar Pradesh, mining leases would be entered into by following e-tendering process. The validity of the Government Order was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court in Nar Narain Mishra v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (2) ADJ 166 (DB). By a judgment delivered on 29 January 2013, the Division Bench upheld the validity of the Government Order and held that both in respect of the grant of fresh mining leases as well as applications for renewal, the declaration made by the Government Order dated 31 May 2012 would apply. The Division Bench held that applicants whose applications for renewal were pending on 31 May 2012 could not claim that their applications should be considered under Chapter II of the Rules and that those areas be kept out of the purview of Government Order dated 31 May 2012. Similarly, the Division Bench also clarified that applications for the grant of fresh leases, which were pending on 31 May 2012, could not be directed to be considered under Chapter II of the Rules and that once a notification had been issued by the State issuing a declaration in terms of the applicability of Chapter-IV of the Rules, the grant of all mining leases thereafter would have to be governed by the process of e-tendering laid down therein.

4. Insofar as the petition is concerned, it is not in dispute that the first grant in favour of respondent No. 4 was made on 29 June 2012 in pursuance of which a mining lease was executed on 31 October 2013. The second grant was on 11 July 2012 while the mining lease was executed on 16 May 2013. In the third case, the permission for renewal was granted on 31 October 2013, whereas the lease was executed on 22 November 2013 in favour of respondent No. 4. The fourth respondent applied for a mining plan on 25 May