JUDGMENT :

ALOK MATHUR, J.

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 over 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 1.6.2020 for the period from 1.6.2020 to 31.5.2025. 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. 10,39,68,500/- has also been proposed.

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