Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri M.D. Singh ‘Shekhar’, Senior Advocate, Sri D.P. Singh, Senior Advocate alongwith Sri Deobrat Mukherjee, Sri Deo Prakash Singh, Sri Mukesh Prasad, Sri S.K. Dwivedi, Sri Rajesh Khare, Sri Rajesh Letiari, Sri Madan Lal Srivastava, Sri Atul Shahi, Sri Akhilesh Kalra, Sri S.K. Pathak, Sri Prasant Shukla, Sri Atul Shahi, Sri Anoop Trivedi and Sri Ved Prakash Singh, Advocates on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned Advocate General for the State of U.P. Assisted by Sri A.K. Singh and Sri Vishnu Pratap Singh, Advocate on behalf of State respondents in this bunch of writ petitions.

2. These writ petitions have been filed with the prayer to quash the Notifications published by the District Magistrate of various districts of State of U.P. issued under Section 72 of the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 as amended up to date (hereinafter referred to as ‘Concession Rules, 1963’) with reference to the Government Notification dated 22nd October, 2014 declaring certain areas as available for grant of minor mineral found in the river bed for the purposes of grant of mining leases. The petitioners challenge Rule 34 sub-rules (4) and (5) as amended under 36th amendment to the Concession Rules, 1963 as well as Rule 9-A, as introduced by 37th amendment to the Concession Rules, 1963. The petitioners have lastly prayed that the State Government may be directed not to proceed with reference to the Government Order dated 22nd October, 2014 without making suitable comprehensive amendments in the Concession Rules, 1963 in consonance with the Model Minor Minerals Conservation and Development Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Model Rules, 2010’) as directed by the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2012(4) SCC 629.

3. Since these petitions raise common questions of facts and law they have been cubbed together and are being decided by this common judgment.

4. Counsel for the parties agree that since affidavits have been exchanged in Writ Petition No. 1498 of 2015, the same may be treated to be the leading case.

5. With the consent of the counsels for the parties these writ petitions have been taken up for final disposal.

6. The petitioners before this Court claim to be engaged in mining business and to have experience in excavation of sand and other minor mineral. It is also their case that most of them had been granted lease by the State of Uttar Pradesh under the Concession Rules, 1963 in previous years which they had operated without any violation of the provisions applicable.

7. According to the petitioners they are in favour of excavation of minor minerals as it is a natural resource for the State Government but at the same time they are also conscious of the fact that such excavation must take place in conformity with Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India, namely that there must be due protection and improvement of the environment, bio-diversity etc. when such excavation is permitted. It is their case that it is the responsibility of the State Government to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest, lakes, rivers and wild life of the country under Article 48-A of the Constitution of India.

8. The Central Legislature has framed Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1957). In exercise of powers under Section 15 of the said Act, 1957 the State of Uttar Pradesh has framed the Concession Rules, 1963 the operation whereof extents to the entire State of U.P.

9. The Apex Court in the case of Deepak Kumar (supra) had the occasion to examine the issue of environmental degradation/threat to biodiversity, damage to riverine vegetation because of the mining activities under taken in respect of minor mineral found in the river bed. The Apex Court also had the occasion to examine the applicability of Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 2006 in respect of mining of mi