By the Court.—Connect with the PIL Nos. 28914 of 2016, 28905 of 2016, 28912 of 2016, 28906 of 2016, 28915 of 2016 and 28904 of 2016.

2. These seven writ petitions have been filed challenging the grant of leases for excavation of minor minerals subsequent to 31st May, 2012 either in the shape of extension of the term of the expired lease, its renewal or by grant of permission to continue with the mining for the obstructed period i.e. the period during which lease rights could not be examined on account of the interim orders passed by the High Court or the order of the Competent Authorities.

3. Other grievance raised by means of these writ petitions is in respect of illegal mining being carried out in the Districts namely Hamirpur, Deoria, Shamli, Fatehpur and Siddhartha Nagar. It is the case of the petitioner that despite there being no subsisting lease in favour of any person for excavation of minor minerals specifically sand, excavation of minor mineral is being carried out by Sand Mafias in collusion with the District Authorities. Form MM-11 are being issued by the District Authorities without there being any subsisting lease in favour of any persons only for circumventing the orders/direction issued by the Hon’ble High Court in various Public Interest Litigation/Writ Petitions.

4. The admitted facts of the matter are that the State Government had issued a Government Order dated 31st May, 2012 declaring that the entire vacant areas would be made available for grant of lease for excavation of minor minerals only by adopting the procedure of e-tendering in terms of the Rule 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as Rules 1963).

5. This Government Order came up for consideration in the case of Nar Narain Mishra v. State of U.P. and others, 2013(2) ADJ 166 (DB). A Division Bench of this Court held that subsequent to 31st May, 2012 i.e. after the declaration has been issued under Rule 23 of the Rules, no application for grant of fresh leases including the pending applications on the said date of notification could be considered for the purpose of grant of lease under Chapter II of the Rules.

6. The applications qua which sanctions had been granted by the State Government prior to 31.5.2012 but actual leases/lease deeds had not been executed till issuance of the Government order dated 31st May, 2012, came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sukhan Singh v. State of U.P., 2014(11) ADJ 89 (DB), wherein it was held as under :

“Consequently, the view of the Division Bench was that no mandamus could be granted, directing the consideration of those applications for renewal of leases which were pending on 31 May 2012 under Chapter II of the Rules, once a declaration has been issued under Rule 23 of the Rules, making the provisions of Chapter IV of the Rules applicable. Similarly, on and after 31 May 2012, it was held, applications for the grant of fresh leases, even though they were pending, would not be governed by Chapter-II of the Rules as claimed by the petitioner.

The view which has been taken by the Division Bench in Nar Narain Mishra (supra) is plainly in accord with both the Act and the Rules. Under Section 4(1) of the Act, there is a prohibition on any person undertaking mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the mining lease. Under Rule 3(1) of the Rules, there is a similar prohibition on undertaking any mining operations in any area within the State, of a minor mineral “except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a mining lease”.

In the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Tamil Nadu (supra), the position in law was set out in the following observations :

“While it is true that such applications should be dealt with within a reasonable time, it cannot on that account be said that the right to have an application disposed of in a reasonable time clothes an applicant for a lease