By the Court.—This petition has been filed in the public interest for quashing the orders granting/renewing the mining leases in favour of private respondent Nos. 4 to 22 and the consequential execution of deeds in their favour.

2. The petitioner asserts that he is a resident of district Banda and has agricultural land holdings situated on the banks of river Ken in district Hamirpur. According to the petitioner, on one side of river Ken is district Hamirpur and on the other side of the river is district Banda. The petitioner claims to be espousing the cause of the general public residing near the banks of the river for bringing to an end the illegal mining that is being carried out by grant/renewal of mining leases in contravention of the statutory provisions. The petitioner has also stated that he has no personal or private interest in the issues that have been raised in this petition and that the result of the litigation will not lead to any undue gain to the petitioner or to anyone associated with him nor would it cause any undue loss to any person, body or persons or State.

The petitioner has placed reliance upon a Government Order dated 31 May 2012 that declares that mining leases and renewals should only be granted under the provisions of Chapter IV of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (‘the Rules’) by following an e-tendering process. On behalf of the petitioner, the principal submission is that all the leases which have been executed in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 22 are contrary to law because once a Government Order was issued on 31 May 2012 making a declaration in terms of Chapter IV of the Rules, the grant of a fresh lease as well as the renewal of an existing lease could not have been made under Chapter II of the Rules and could have been made by only following the procedure prescribed in Chapter IV of the Rules. In the present case, it has been submitted that in all the cases, both the date of the grant/renewal and the date of the execution of the deed is after 31 May 2012 and hence, the leases have been executed ex facie in a manner contrary to law and would, therefore, be invalid.

3. Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel, Sri Mukesh Prasad and Sri Vikas Budhwar appearing for some of the private respondents and the learned Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that this petition has not been filed in the public interest but has been filed at the instance of some unsuccessful applicants who were not granted mining leases. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner has no locus to file this petition. Certain paragraphs of the counter-affidavit were also referred to by learned counsel to demonstrate that many criminal cases are pending against the petitioner and by not disclosing them, the petitioner has concealed material facts from the Court. In support of their contention, reliance was placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2005) 1 SCC 590; Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2013) 4 SCC 465; Honkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited v. Canbank Financial Services Limited and another, (2014) 1 SCC 614 and Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo and others, (2014) 1 SCC 161.

4. On merits, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the leases/renewals were granted in favour of private respondent Nos. 4 to 22 prior to 31 May 2012 on which date the Government Order was issued and, therefore, it cannot be said that the leases/renewals had been granted illegally. Elaborating this connection it was pointed out by the learned counsel that the State Government had granted prior approval before 31 May 2012 and only environmental clearance was required which was subsequently given. To support this contention, learned counsel placed charts which