Back
2024 Supreme(All) 1322
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, JAYANT BANERJI, JJ.
Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and anr. - Respondents
Writ C No.7525 of 2005
Decided on : 19-04-2024
For the Appellant :Sharad Kumar Pandey, Atul Kumar Pandey, M.K. Pandey and Md Mishra, Advocates.
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court held that a cancellation application under Rule 16 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules must be treated as a valid six months' notice, and the rejection of such application was unwarranted.
Headnote:
(A) U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 - Rule 16 - Cancellation of mining lease - Petitioner sought cancellation of lease due to inability to extract sand - Respondents dismissed application citing responsibility for road provision - Court held rejection unwarranted as notice should be treated as six months' notice under Rule 16 - Order quashed. (Paras 11, 14)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope - Writ petition filed directly without appeal to statutory authorities is maintainable if the order is illegal. (Paras 7, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, the highest bidder for a sand mining lease, sought cancellation due to drought and lack of access to the mining site. The application was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate, leading to the present writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the rejection of the cancellation application was not warranted and directed the respondents to consider the application as a six months' notice under Rule 16.
Issues: Whether the application for cancellation was valid under Rule 16 and if the respondents acted appropriately in dismissing it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondents should have treated the cancellation application as a valid six months' notice under Rule 16, allowing the petitioner to seek lease determination.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri. M.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents.
2. This petition had been initially filed seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the applications of the petitioner for cancellation of lease.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to realise the royalty in respect of leased area to the petitioner after 15.6.2004."
3. The case in the petition is that pursuant to an advertisement dated 20.11.2002, an auction was held on 7.1.2003 for extracting sand from certain river Ghats situated in Tehsil Farenda, District Maharajganj. The petitioner made the highest bid of Rs. 1,95,000/ which was accepted on annual premium of Rs. 1,95,000/. The petitioner deposited the entire amount of bid by 15.6.2004. A lease deed was executed on 16.6.2003 which was registered on 17.6.2003. It is alleged that due to drought, there was no sand in the leased mining area of the petitioner and there was no approach road to extract the sand from the leased area and as such, the petitioner made an application to the respondent no.3, District Magistrate on 15.6.2004 under Rule 16 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 Rules, 1963. to cancel his mining lease. Further, applications dated 14.9.2004 and 28.9.2004 were also submitted by the petitioner to cancel the lease granted in his favour. Another detailed application dated 22.12.2004 was filed seeking cancellation of the lease. On failure of respondents to cancel the lease deed, the present petition was filed. During the pendency of this petition, a citation dated 5.4.2004 was issued by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Nautanwa, district Maharajganj and therefore, on an application filed on behalf of the petitioner, the prayer was permitted to be amended and the following prayer was added as prayer no. 2A.
"2A. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned citation dated 5.4.2005, issued by Tehsildar, Tah-Nautanwa, District Maharajganj."
4. It is pertinent to mention here that another amendment application was filed on behalf of the petitioner on 5.7.2019 which was allowed by the order of the Court dated 4.3.2004. Thereafter, prayer no. 2A was amended to read as follows:
"2A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 7.8.2004 (Annexure no. SA-1) and consequential citation dated 5.4.2005 issued by Tehsildar, Tehsil Nautanwa, district Maharajganj."
5. In a supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been stated that the petitioner has been discriminated against inasmuch as by an order dated 25.5.2005, the State Government had directed the District Magistrate, Maharajganj to take steps for cancellation of the lease deed in view of the fact that there was opposition of farmers due to which sand could not be mined.
6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that in the auction held on 7.1.2003, four persons including the petitioner had participated, in which the petitioner was the highest bidder. On acceptance of the bid of the petitioner, a lease deed in favour of the petitioner was executed which was duly registered and it was for a period of three years; that the petitioner voluntarily had submitted stamp papers and got the lease deed executed. Under Rule 40 of the Rules, 1963, the petitioner himself is responsible for arranging of road for transportation of mines mineral; that it was evident from a site inquiry report that a straight public road goes upto the sand extraction site in the concerned villages and there is no inconvenience in extraction and transportation of the sand (minerals). Despite all these, when the petitioner did not deposit the requisite charges and royalty and without using the Ravanna form in adequate numbers and indulged in illegal extraction
