By the Court.—The writ petition and the connected public interest litigation, have been filed basically for challenging the action of the State-authorities in granting renewal, in respect of the leases for excavation of minor minerals under the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 1963’), as well as in respect of extensive use of heavy machineries by such lease holders for excavation of minor minerals contrary to the mining plan/environmental clearance issued in their favour in clear violation of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2012 (4) SCC 629.

2. The writ petition and the public interest litigation raise common question of public interest and have therefore, been clubbed together.

3. Will this Court wait for indefinite period so that the officers of the State may understand that they owe their allegiance to the State and its public and not to their political bosses and the Contractors of mines.

4. Repeatedly, writ petitions are being filed before this Court pointing out that the judgments delivered by Division Benches of this Court are being flouted with impunity by the highest officers of the State including the Secretary, what to talk about the District Magistrate.

5. A Division Bench in the case of Nar Narain Mishra v. State of U.P. and others, 2013(2) ADJ 166, after interpreting the Government Order dated 31.5.2012 recorded as principle of law, that once notification has been published by the State Government in exercise of powers under Rule 23 of the Rules 1963, for vacant areas being available for grant of leases under Chapter IV of Rules, 1963, no grant/renewal on the pending applications can be made, after 31.5.2012. The State was not satisfied with the legal position so explained. It came out with a Government Order dated 26.2.2013, which provided that pending applications, for renewal/grant in respect of which orders of approval have already been made by the State Government or by the competent authority shall not be controlled by the judgment in the case of Nar Narain Mishra (Supra) such cases may be processed further.

5. This Government Order dated 26.2.2013 came up for consideration before another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sukkhan Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2014(11) ADJ 89. The Division Bench has held that the Government Order dated 26.2.2013cannot deviate from the legal position, as has been explained in the case of Nar Narain Mishra (Supra).

6. It, therefore, follows that no application which was pending on 31.5.2012 can be proceeded with for grant/renewal of lease under Chapter II/VI of the Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963 after 31.5.2012. The grant, if any, after 31.5.2012 can only be made under Chapter IV of the Rules of 1963 i.e. by e-auction or tendering. The State and its Officers have shown little or no respect to the orders of this Court.

7. Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 35257 of 2015 has been filed for quashing of the orders dated 9th October, 2013 and dated 14th October, 2013 issued by the State Government and the District Magistrate, Fatehpur respectively in respect of mining plot situate at Khand No. A-5, Village Ardhawal, Pargana Muttaur, District Fatehpur. Petitioner also seeks quashing of the execution/registration of mining lease in favour of respondent No. 4 as per order dated 17th October, 2013.

8. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 35233 of 2015 has been filed for quashing the orders/letters dated 17th April, 2013 issued in favour of respondent No. 4 for Zone No. 12, Khand No. 15, Zone No. 11 and Khand No. 31 and in favour of respondent No. 5 in respect of Zone No. 12, Khand No. 13 and letter/notice dated 1st May, 2013. Petitioner has also prayed for a writ of certiorari cancelling the lease deed executed on 27th April, 2013 and dated 29th may, 2013 for Zone No. 11 and Khand No. 29.

9. We further find that writ petitions are filed both before the Luckn