Back
2023 Supreme(All) 2088
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, SHEKHAR B. SARAF, JJ.
Chandrakant Pandey - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33253 of 2023
Decided On : 01-12-2023
For the Petitioner: Arvind Srivastava.
For the Respondents: C.S.C.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that multiple applications for renewal of a storage licence are permissible within a two-year period under the relevant rules.
Headnote:
Renewal - Storage Licence - Uttar Pradesh Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2018 - The court interpreted Rule 9, allowing for multiple renewal applications within a two-year limit, leading to the decision to renew the petitioner's licence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for a storage licence which was granted for one year. After applying for renewal before the expiry, the licence was renewed for another year. The petitioner sought further renewal, but the District Magistrate denied it based on an interpretation of the renewal rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Magistrate incorrectly interpreted the renewal rules, asserting that the petitioner had the right to renew the licence multiple times within the two-year limit.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could renew the storage licence more than once within the two-year period as per the applicable rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to renew the licence until the maximum two-year period expired, rejecting the District Magistrate's interpretation that limited renewals to one.
Result: The court set aside the District Magistrate's order and directed the renewal of the petitioner's licence.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner was granted a storage licence upon his making an application on 16.1.2021 for a period of one year. The licence as was granted to the petitioner under the Uttar Pradesh Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules, 2018'') was to expire on 15.1.2022 and, therefore, he applied for the renewal even before the licence expired on 15.1.2022.
2. The petitioner on 31.12.2021 had, as mentioned above, applied for the renewal for a period of one year and the authorities also renewed the licence on 7.1.2022 till 7.3.2023. When the licence was renewed on 7.1.2022, the renewal was to be effective with effect from 8.3.2022 for a period of one year. When again the licence expired on 7.3.2023 the petitioner again applied for its renewal for a period of one year on 24.11.2022. This licence renewal application when was placed before the District Magistrate, he enquired from the Geological Department as to whether the licence could be renewed again for a period of another one year.
3. On 3.7.2023, the Director of Geological Department advised the District Magistrate relying upon the Rule 9 of the Rules, 2018 that the licence could be renewed only once. Thereafter the District Magistrate on the advice received from the Director of the Geological Department passed the impugned order on 6.9.2023 saying that as per the Rule 9 of the Rules, 2018, the licence could not be renewed, as it was earlier renewed once.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed this order on the basis of the fact that renewal of the licence as per Rule 9 of the Rules, 2018, could be done for a period of two years. He has submitted that there was no embargo as to how many times an application could be moved for nenewal within those two years.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, states that the licencee could move for renewal any number of times in a period of two years but the extension could not exceed two years.
6. Since learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Rule 9 of the Rules, 2018, the same is being reproduced here as under:
''9. Renewal of Licence.-
(1) The licence can be renewed for a maximum period of two years subject to the condition that all the terms and condition have been complied with.
(2) In case the renewal of licence is granted, the security money already deposited by the licensee, if valid, shall be accounted for as the security deposit for the renewal of licence.
(3) The period of renewal of licence shall commence from the date of the expiry of the licence under renewal.''
7. Learned Standing Counsel, however, in reply has submitted that the renewal could be made only once and if the petitioner in his first application which he had moved on 31.12.2021 did not pray for the renewal of the licence for a period of two years then he had lost the opportunity to get the licence renewed for the second time. He submits that the petitioner had foregone the right to get the licence renewed after he had earlier made the application.
8. Learned Standing Counsel, therefore, supported the impugned order and submitted that the writ petition be dismissed.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the District Magistrate erred in saying that the licence could not be renewed twice even if the licence was being renewed for only two years after the initial grant. Initially when the licence was granted it was to expire on 15.1.2022. Subsequently the petitioner had applied for a renewal on 24.11.2022 for its renewal with effect from 8.3.2022 and the renewal was done till 7.3.2023. We definitely hold that the petitioner had every right to get his licence renewed till 7.3.2024 i.e. till the time when two years period of renewal expired.
10. Under such circumstances, the order dated 6.9.2023 passed by the District Magistrate is set aside. The District Magistrate is directed to issue a renewal to the petitioner on
