The court upheld that the State's refusal to renew a prospecting license was justified due to prior leases and forest designation, affirming that leases contrary to the Mines Act are void.

JUDGMENT

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.

Heard Shri. Dev Brat Mukherjee, for the petitioner and Shri. M. C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, Shri. Navin Sinha, Senior Advocate for the sixth respondent and Shri. Amit Saxena Senior Advocate, for respondent no.7.

2. The petition seeks a writ of mandamus commanding third respondent (State of U.P. through Secretary, Industrial Development, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow) to renew the prospecting license issued to the petitioner for an area of 1.45 hectares and to execute a fresh lease for an area 5.63 hectares in village Billi Markundi, Pargana Agori, Tehsil Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra, as directed by the order of the Government of India, Ministry of Mines, dated 26.07.2010.

3. The facts briefly stated are that on 22.12.1998, the petitioner filed application under Rule 9(1) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, for a prospecting license for an area of 10 hectares in village Billi Markund, Pargana Agori, Tehsil Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra over plot No. 3688 (New No. 7985k).

4. It appears that the State Government required the petitioner to obtain a no objection certificate from the U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation, UPSMDC in whose name the plot in question was recorded.

5. It is stated that the petitioner replied, stating that the plot in question was recorded in the name of the State Government and that the entry in favour of the UPSMDC had already been expunged.

6. On 04.08.2000, the State Government is stated to have granted a prospecting license to the petitioner which was for an area of three hectares only, as opposed to the application of the petitioner which was for ten hectares. The petitioner deposited the requisite fee for demarcation of this area. The Forest Department also issued a no objection certificate to the petitioner for the plot in question. Thereafter, on 07.03.2002, a prospecting mining lease was executed in favour of the petitioner for a period of two years.

7. The petitioner applied for renewal of this prospecting license in accordance with Rules 8, 9 and 11 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 on 01.01.2004. Since a fresh demarcation would be required, the petitioner deposited demarcation fee as well.

8. Consequent to the application for renewal, the Director, Geology and Mining is stated to have written to District Magistrate on 05.04.2004 enquiring whether the area in question was covered by the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

9. The District Magistrate is stated to have recommended renewal of the prospecting license. However, the prospecting/mining license was not renewed. As no formal order in this regard was passed, as was required by the State Government by Rule 11 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the petitioner, under the circumstances and on account of in-action of the State Government filed another application for grant of a mining lease under Rule 22(3) of the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960. This application was received on 20.03.2006.

10. On 05.02.2007, the petitioner filed yet another application for grant of prospecting license under Rule 9(1) of the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960.

11. Despite, the aforesaid applications and on account of inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2610 of 2008, which was disposed of 30.12.2008 directing the State Government to pass appropriate orders on the application for renewal filed by the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of the order is filed before the State Government.

12. Thereafter, the State Government, by the order dated 12.01.2009, rejected the renewal application, as barred by time.

13. Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner filed a revision before the Central Government which was decided by final order No. 228 of 2010 dated 26.07.2010. The order rejecting the renewal application was set aside and a further direction was issued to the State Government to renew the prospec