SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 240

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Alok Mathur, J.
M/s Radhika Constructions through its Proprietor Mr. Rakesh Tiwari – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy Deptt. Of Geology And Mines Lko. And another – Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 2478 of 2022
Decided On : 01-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shishir Chandra
For the Respondent: Mr. Tushar Verma

Point of Law: Rule 58 of Rules of 1963 provides that in consequence of non -payment of royalty or other dues same can be recovered by respondents only after service of notice to lessee, to pay within thirty days of receipt of notice.

Headnote:

Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concessions) Rules, 1963 - Rule 41 (H) (1), 58, 59 (2), 60 and 67 - E-tender - Lease deed - Cancellation of mining lease - Petitioner has challenged order passed by State Government thereby rejecting revision preferred by petitioner against cancellation of mining lease vide order passed by District Magistrate – Rule 58 of Rules of 1963 has been flagrantly violated by respondents in cancellation of their lease. [Para 30]

Finding of the Court: It is particular officer who initiated proceedings against petitioner and other similarly situated persons, who can be said to have already made up her mind with regard to penalty to be imposed upon petitioner which is evident from her letter and further proceeded to decide revision and, therefore, she was a Judge of her own cause deciding a matter which was initiated by her and also revision challenging order of District Magistrate which was passed on her dictates - Ground of bias squarely applies to facts of present case and order rejecting revision is clearly illegal, arbitrary and is hit with vice of bias - Order of cancellation has been passed on before expiry of statutory period, as such, it is clearly noticed that Rule 58 of Rules of 1963 has been flagrantly violated by respondents in cancellation of their lease in pursuance of show cause notice - Therefore, on this ground also cancellation order is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Rule 58 of Rules of 1963 - Court is of the considered view that impugned order passed by State Government in Revision as well as order passed by opposite party No.3 i.e. District Magistrate, Banda are illegal and arbitrary, hence, set aside.

Result: Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Shishir Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Rakesh Bajpai, learned Standing counsel, Sri Tushar Verma, Special Counsel and Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh, Additional Advocate General for the respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.3.2022 passed by the State Government thereby rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner against the cancellation of mining lease vide order dated 26.4.2021 passed by District Magistrate, Banda.

FACTS OF THE CASE :

3. The facts in brief necessary for adjudication of the present case are that the petitioner in response to an e-tender/e-auction for mining participated in the auction and his bid was adjudged to be the highest and lease deed was executed in favor of the petitioner on 6.6.2020 for the period from 6.6.2020 to 5.6.2025. After execution of the mining lease the petitioner started mining operations but suddenly the One Time Password (O.T.P.) was stopped by the District Magistrate, Banda on 19.3.2021. Subsequently, it is stated that an inspection was conducted by a team of officers of the Directorate, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh between 13.3.2021 and 18.3.2021 and some allegations with regard to the irregularities pertaining to illegal mining were found correct and on the basis of the aforesaid inspection report a show cause notice was served on the petitioner on 22.3.2021. According to the said show cause notice issued by the District Magistrate, Banda it was mentioned that an inspection was conducted by a team where it has been found that the petitioner is involved in illegal mining and he has extracted minor minerals from the area not allotted to him and extracted mineral to a depth which was not permissible as per the lease deed. Accordingly, a notice was given as to why the lease be not cancelled. In the said show cause notice, penalty for the same offence has also been fixed as Rs.50,000/-and recovery of royalty for an amount of Rs.7,81,61,400/-has also been proposed in the said notice.

4. The petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid show cause notice submitted reply on 30.3.2021 where they have denied the allegations leveled in the show cause notice and have stated that apart from the show cause notice no material was provided to the petitioner as directed by the court in the case of Ranveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2017 (1) ADJ 240 passed in writ C No.51986 of 2016 and further submitted that there was no credible evidence in support of the allegations and, hence, requested for setting aside the show cause notice.

5. After considering the reply of the petitioner the District Magistrate by means of its order dated 26th April, 2021 has cancelled the mining lease of the petitioner. While rejecting the reply of the petitioner the District Magistrate has recorded that the petitioner has extracted minor minerals from an area not allotted to him and extracted 12,970 cubic meters of sand/maurang in excess and 73,876 cubic meters illegally which fact has been reported by the Enforcement Team in its report dated 19.3.2021. He has further noticed that the petitioner was asked to deposit the amount of royalty of an amount of Rs.7,81,61,400/-but even the said amount has not been deposited by the petitioner and accordingly he was of the view that the said outstanding amount needs to be recovered from the petitioner along with penalty as provided under Rule 41 (H) (1) and 59 (2) of Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concessions) Rules, 1963. He has further considered the fact that the Director, Mining and Geology, Uttar Pradesh had constituted enforcement team for physical inspection which conducted the spot inspection on 14.3.2021 which submitted report on 19.3.2021 where it was found that the petitioner had conducted mining operations of an area 3.358 hect. and extracted 73,876 cubi

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top