By the Court.—This writ petition has been filed by Mohammad Yunus Hasan for a writ of mandamus commanding the State authorities to extend the mining lease of the petitioner dated 29.1.2006 for a further period of 2 years 10 months and 12 days commencing from 29.1.2016 and not to create any third party rights in respect of mining area in question for this period.

2. Sri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri J.H. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the alternative the petitioner may be provided compensation for the loss which has been caused to him because of illegal curtailment of the period of lease, which was granted in favour of the petitioner, because of the wrongful action of the State authorities.

3. Facts in short leading to the writ petition are as follows :

Petitioner before this Court was granted a lease for excavation of minor minerals on 29.1.2006 in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. The lease was for a period of 10 years. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.9.2008, alleging therein that the petitioner has done illegal mining to the extent of 756 cubic meters. Petitioner submitted a reply. Respondent No. 4 i.e. the Collector, Banda made an order on 26.2.2009, cancelling the lease of the petitioner. Not being satisfied, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, which appeal is stated to have been allowed vide order dated 24.1.2011 and the matter was remanded to the Collector to decide afresh.

4. After remand, by means of the order dated 1.7.2011, the Collector Banda held that the charge of illegal mining was not established. However, the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 18,144/-, as royalty with the State Government. The petitioner is stated to have complied with the order, by depositing the said amount on 4.11.2011.

5. The petitioner on 2.12.2011 made an application for extending the term of the lease for the period it stood curtailed under the earlier order of the District Magistrate. No order was passed on his said application. The petitioner therefore approached the Commissioner. The Commissioner is stated to have passed an order holding therein that the appeal was not maintainable. The order so made by the Commissioner is not under challenge before us. However, the petitioner made an application before the State Government with reference to the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2003 SC 833, and in the case of J.P. Yadav v. Kanhaiya Singh and others, being Civil Appeal No. 8621 of 2013 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 16316 of 2006) decided on 19.9.2013 for extension of the period of lease as per the prayer noted above.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application of the petitioner for grant of extension of the term of lease, be directed to be considered and granted in terms of the prayer clause of the writ petition.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

8. It is not in dispute that the term for which the lease was granted in favour of the petitioner has expired on 28.1.2016. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has enjoyed the benefits of the lease during the period of its subsistence, except for the period when the lease deed was cancelled under the order of Collector. The procedure and the conditions in the matter of grant of lease in respect of minor minerals has gone a sea change under the directions of the Apex Court as per judgment in the case of Deepak Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, (2012) 4 SCC 629.

9. The State of Uttar Pradesh in terms of the direction of the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others (supra) has affected various amendments in the Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 being amendment Nos. 35th, 36th and 37th. These amendments have been taken note of by Division Benches of this High Cou