JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri Pratik Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.2.2021 passed by the respondent No. 1 communicating to the respondent No. 3-District Magistrate that it is not possible to execute the lease-deed for renewal of lease granted to the petitioner nor is it possible to have anyone as a partner in the lease-deed. Further challenge is to the communication dated 22.2.2021 sent by the District Magistrate (respondent No. 3) to the petitioner informing it of the aforesaid order dated 4.2.2021 and also communicating that pursuant to a Government Order dated 19.12.2019, the vacant mining areas pertaining to minor minerals granite/dimensional stone, have to be arranged on the basis of e-tendering-cum-e-auction in pursuance of Rule 23(1) of theUttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (Rules of 1963). Further challenge is to the communication dated 22.2.2021, whereby the approval granted to the petitioner on 3.6.2016 for renewal of the mining lease was cancelled and the relevant plot numbers were declared as vacant for purposes of its arrangement on the basis of e-tendering-cum-e-auction. The petitioner has also challenged the notice dated 24.2.2021 inviting bids by e-tendering-cum-e-auction for granite mining pertaining to the plots of land previously leased to the petitioner.

3. It is contended that pursuant to permission granted by the respondent No. 1 in favour of the petitioner for commencing mining operations in respect of sheet rock (granite size dimensional stone), a lease-deed was executed by the State Government in favour of the petitioner for the said mining operations for a period of fifteen years on 13.8.1998 in respect of several plots of land having an area of 10.00 acres in Village-Toriya, Tehsil & District Lalitpur. The petitioner filed an application for renewal of the lease on 8.2.2013, which was forwarded by the District Magistrate to the State Government for directions. It is contended that entire amount of royalty was paid by the petitioner and environment clearance certificate for granite size dimensional stones was also obtained. A recommendation for renewal of the lease was sent by the District Magistrate by means of his letter dated 19.12.2013 and by means of an order dated 3.6.2016, the State Government communicated to the District Magistrate its decision to renew the lease for the period of fifteen years with additional conditions. It is contended that an application was submitted on behalf of the petitioner before the respondent No. 3 to add the names of three persons in the lease deed to be executed since the proprietor of the petitioner was keeping ill-health. By a letter dated 13.1.2017, the District Magistrate sought clarification from the State Government in this regard. In the meanwhile, by means of an order dated 20.6.2016 passed in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 28916 of 2016 (Vijay Kumar Dwivedi v. State ofUttar Pradesh and others), 2016 (9) ADJ 61 (DB), the High Court had restrained the excavation of minor minerals on the basis of lease deeds or permission granted subsequent to 31.5.2012 by whatever name it be called, i.e. (a) renewal of the expired lease; (b) grant of fresh lease; (c) right to excavate for the obstructed period; and (d) extension of the term of the lease. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the High Court in the PIL, the State Government issued a Government Order dated 18.11.2016 imposing ban on the mining operations undertaken under the mining leases subject to decision of the Court. It is contended that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Peethambra Granite (P) Ltd. v. State ofUttar Pradesh and others, Writ-C No. 30066 of 2017, vide its judgment dated 18.2.2020, distinguished the judgment in the aforesaid PIL of Vijay Kumar Dwivedi and held that the Government Order da