IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD BENCH AT LUCKNOW
Rajeev Singh, J.
M/s. Awasthi Traders - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4491 of 2021
Decided On : 10-06-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Civil Appeal – Quashed the order – Lease-Mining Lease – Cancellation – Illegality – Petition has been filed seeking prayers – Held, Fact that present dispute is an outcome of filing of multiple cases against same order, even by imposter also, in order to harass such practice, State Government is directed to commence a mechanism, which allows concerned parties to file their revisions/cases through E-mode also and also ensure that every order, including final orders of each case should strictly be uploaded on website of concerned Department – Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
[Rajeev Singh, J.]
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Abhinav Narain Trivedi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material brought on record as also the records of Revision No. 106 (R)/SM/2020 and Revision No. 133 (R)/SM/2020.
2. The petition has been filed seeking the following prayers:
2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 7.12.2020 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Revision No. 133 (R)/SM/2020, as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition.
3. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 30.5.2020 passed by the respondent No. 3, as contained in Annexure 17 to the writ petition.
4. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the advertisement dated 2.6.2020 to the extent it relates to serial No. 6, as contained in Annexure 19 to the writ petition.
5. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order Letter of Intent dated 19.6.2020 and permit (after summoning the same in original) issued in favour of the respondent No. 5, as contained in Annexure 24 to the writ petition.
6. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 to allow the petitioner to undertake mining activity in pursuance to the lease deed dated 6.11.2018 in respect of area Khand No. 29/1 situated in Village Bakchhakhadar, Tehsil Maudaha, District Hamirpur.''
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Department of Geology and Mining, Government of U.P., by means of Government Order dated 14.8.2017 issued a declaration under Rule 23 of Minor Minerals Rules, 1963 to grant mining leases of riverbed minerals by means of E-commerce under the provisions of Chapter IV of Rule, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), in pursuance of which, an advertisement was issued by District Magistrate, Hamirpur in respect of Khand No. 29/1 situated in village Bakchhakhadar, Tehsil Maudaha, District Hamirpur for an area measuring 12.145 hc. for a quantity of 1,94,304 cubic meters per year sand/morrum. It has been submitted that petitioner participated in the process of said E-auction-cum-tender and being the highest bidder of Rs. 857 per cubic meters, the Letter of Intent was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, he deposited the due amount and got the mining plan prepared and was also granted the environmental clearance on 24.11.2018. (Environmental clearance dated 24.11.2018 is annexed as Annexure 4). It is also submitted that after issuance of environmental clearance, the petitioner was granted mining lease and the lease deed was executed on 6.11.2018 for a period of 27.11.2018 to 26.11.2023.
4. In the meantime, environmental clearance given to the petitioner as well as other persons was challenged before the National Green Tribunal in OA Nos. 263 of 2018 and 264 of 2018. The National Green Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') quashed the environmental clearance granted to 36 lease holders on 25.9.2019, in pursuance of which, respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Hamirpur vide order dated 30.9.2019 stopped the mining activity of the petitioner till further orders or till the orders passed by the Tribunal. (Copy of the order dated 30.9.2019 is annexed as Annexure 6). Thus, the petitioner could not undertake mining activity. The order of the Tribunal was challenged by the State of U.P. before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8590 of 2019 and vide order dated 13.12.2019, Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the order dated 25.9.2019 passed by the Tribunal as well as all consequential orders and r
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of observing the principles of natural justice in administrative decisions, and the requirement for authorities to consider relevant....
Tender - State Government may, either suo moto at any time or on an application made within ninety days from date of communication of the order, call for examine record relating to any order passed o....
Point of Law : Court will not and cannot earn any sympathy or favourable order unless the statement is supported by the sincere, honest and diligent efforts made and manifested before the authority.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.