The right to extension of a mining permit and the right to refund under Rule 41(h) of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021, are determined by statutory provisions and judicial interpretations.

JUDGMENT :

(1) The petitioner had applied for a license/permit when an advertisement was issued inviting E-tenders under Rule 23(2)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. When the petitioner's tender was accepted a permit was granted to him for six months on payment of Rs.2,77,20,000/-. The mining was to commence on 09.05.2022 and end on 08.01.2023. The permit itself provided that during the monsoon season for the months of July, August and September no mining would be done.

(2) In the meantime, one Dileep Singh approached the National Green Tribunal and filed an Original Application being Original Application No.319 of 2022 (Dileep Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) and alleged that the petitioner did not have a proper environmental clearance certificate. To begin with the Green Tribunal on 9th May, 2022 directed that no mining activities were to be done by the petitioner at the mining site. This order, however, merged in the final order of the Green Tribunal which on 1st July, 2022, while disposing of the original application provided that the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Uttar Pradesh (S.E.I.A.A.) had to revisit the environmental clearance as was issued to the petitioner within a period of two months. It had also observed that pending such consideration the interim order, which was earlier granted on 9th May, 2022 would continue. Ultimately, the environmental clearance was given to the petitioner on 14.05.2023. The District Magistrate thereafter concluded that since the petitioner had as per the permit dated 09.05.2022 worked for only nine days, he be permitted to work for the remaining five months and 21 days and therefore, granted him the permission from 16.05.2023 to 06.02.2024 to continue with the mining work. He, however, withdrew this order by a subsequent order dated 20th May, 2023 relying upon the order of the High Court passed in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.28916 of 2016, Vijay Kumar Dwivedi vs. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

(3) Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has approached this Court and has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 20.05.2013. Alternatively he had prayed that he be allowed to excavate for the period he had not worked i.e. for five months and 21 days. Still further he has prayed that if work for that period could not be given to him then the proportionate royalty be returned to him with interest.

(4) Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the ground as was taken by the District Magistrate in the order dated 20th May, 2023 had no legs to stand as subsequent to the passing of the interim orders in Vijay Kumar Dwivedi's case, the State Government itself had issued Government order dated 14th August, 2017, which was followed by another Government Order dated 23rd May, 2020, wherein the State Government had laid down the procedure for E-tendering and therefore, the embargo as was put by the orders in the PIL had no effect.

(5) Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that since now there was no hurdle in the way of the petitioner to mine he may be allowed to continue to work for the remaining five months and 21 days.

(6) Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. JT 2002 (10) SC 417. He also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2020 SC 4870, Chowgule and Company Private Limited Vs. Goa Foundation and others and argued that if during the subsistence of the license period a litigation had intervened and the petitioner had not been able to mine from the mine for which he had a valid permit then the period of time of mining be extended.

(7) Per contra, Sri Sandeep Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel relying upon the judgment reported in (2021) 1 Supreme Court Cases 93, Dharmendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, argued that if during the period of the subsistence of a license, if the work of the petitioner was hindered