By the Court.—Heard M.C. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Sri Ashish Malhotra.

2. This writ petition in the nature of public interest petition has been filed challenging the directions, issued under letter dated 28.3.2016 of the Principal Secretary, respondent No. 2 as well as the order dated 29.3.2016 passed by respondent No. 4 permitting respondent Nos. 6 & 7 to lift the auctioned sand by extending the period for such lifting beyond the term as fixed under the conditions of auction/agreement on the plea that certain period could not be utilized for lifting for various reasons.

3. The ground of challenge is that the very conduct of auction of the seized minor minerals on 29.6.2015 by the District Magistrate was an illegal act, without authority of law being in teeth of the judgment and order of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 11489 of 2015 (Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 10.3.2015.

4. Facts in brief relevant for consideration of the interim application are as follows :

Certain quantity of minor minerals were seized by the District Administration of District Saharanpur on 12.11.2014 and 30.12.2014.

5. According to the District Administration, mining transportation & storage of the said minor minerals was illegal. The seized minor minerals were put to auction by the District Magistrate on 22.1.2015 but nobody participated. Fresh auction took place on 29.6.2015 under the control and supervision of the District Magistrate. Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 are stated to have offered highest bid in respect of the seized minor minerals, they also deposited the required money in terms of the condition of the auction and an agreement was executed on the required stamp paper.

6. It appears that under the order dated 23.2.2016 of the Joint Secretary (Ministry of Mining and Geology), the District Administration prevented the lifting/transportation of the said seized minor minerals by the auction purchaser. Against the direction of the Joint Secretary dated 23.2.2016 and the order of the District Magistrate, the auction purchasers moved Original Application Nos. 125 of 2016 and 126 of 2016 before the National Green Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi. It was their case before the tribunal that they have a right to transport the seized mineral purchased in the auction held on 29.6.2015.

7. The orders of the National Green Tribunal dated 21.3.2016, passed in Original Application No. 125 of 2016 and Original Application No. 126 of 2016 as also the orders passed in Original Application No. 171 of 2016 dated 8.4.2016, 19.5.2016 and 6.6.2016 with connected matters have been placed before us and we have pursued the same.

8. According to the petitioner the issue for consideration before this Court is as to whether the District Magistrate has any competence to put the seized minor minerals to auction in view of the statutory provisions of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The legal position, in that regard is no res-integra inasmuch as a Division Bench of this Court has examined the statutory provisions which confer a power of seizure upon the District Authorities and for the manner/procedure, for the seized goods to be disposed of.

9. We may reproduce the findings which have been returned by the Division Bench of this Court on the issue, which read as :

“8. We may record that sub-clause (1-A) of Section 4 of the Act 1957 prohibits transportation, storage or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act 1927 and the rules framed thereunder. Section 21 of the Act 1957 make the contravention of the provision of Section 4 (1A) of the Act 1957 as punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twenty five thousand rupees or with both. Section 23A of the said Act provides that the offence committed under this Act may be compounded by the person authorized under Sect