The court upheld the legality of mining leases under U.P. Minor Minerals Rules, clarifying that G.O. dated 31.5.2012 applies only to river bed minerals, as per G.O. dated 26.2.2013.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Bhansali, C.J.

Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Narendra Srivastava, for the petitioner and Mr. Irfanul Huda for applicant/intervenor; and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, A.A.G., Sri Ramanand Pandey, A.C.S.C., Sri Arvind Singh, A.C.S.C., Sri. Rajiv Singh, S.C., Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ram Dayal Tiwari, Advocate, Sri Devbrat Mukherjee, Sri Shailesh Kumar Pathak, Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi and Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocates, for respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed as a public interest litigation on 27.4.2017 seeking the following reliefs:

''(i) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari, calling for records of the case and quashing the illegal lease agreement/deeds issued on different dates between 23.5.2016 to 1.6.2016, as narrated under paragraph No. 31 to this writ petition.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to call upon the respondent Nos. 5,6 and 7 in order to enquire into the entire matter, in respect of the corruption of more than 15 crore rupees committed by them causing huge loss to public exchequer as well as about contemptuous attitude towards order of this Hon'ble Court, shown by the said respondents.

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus commanding the appropriate authority to recover the entire amount from the respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 which has been caused to public exchequer, due to the corrupt and contemptuous attitude of the said respondents.

(iv) issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

(v) award the cost of the present writ petition to the petitioner.''

3. It is, inter alia, indicated in the petition that the petitioner is a Non Governmental Organization (N.G.O.) performing several social and public interest activities throughout the country, particularly in the State of Uttar Pradesh, specifically relating to the protection of forest and environment, which is getting adversely affected due to illegal activities.

4. It is further indicated that cause of action for filing the petition arose on account of State Government having made a paradigm shift in its policy decision, as contained in Government Order dated 31.5.2012, by taking a u-turn and reverting back to grant of mining lease in respect of minor minerals in accordance with Chapter II of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (''the Rules''). It is claimed that the change of procedure has given a go-bye to earlier avowed declaration about transparency and fairness as warranted by Public Trust doctrine and is going to cause immense loss of revenue to State exchequer.

5. It is elaborated that under Chapter II of the Rules, the grantee is only liable to pay royalty and dead rent which is far less than what is earned by the Government by way of bid money by resorting to auction, as prescribed under Chapter IV of the Rules.

6. By way of chronology, it is indicated that G.O. dated 16.3.1999 (Annexure-1) was issued by the State for grant of mining leases of minor minerals irrespective of its source only by way of auction in terms of Chapter IV of the Rules. The G.O. dated 16.3.1999 came to be superseded by G.O. dated 30.12.2000, inter alia, providing that instead of auction procedure, the lease shall be granted as per procedure prescribed under Chapters II, III and VI of the Rules by inviting applications subject to payment of royalty and dead rent. It is then contended that on 31.5.2012 (Annexure-3) State issued another G.O. for settling the mining leases under Chapter IV of the Rules, i.e., by e-auction or tendering.

7. It is claimed that the G.O. dated 31.5.2012 applied to all types of mining leases to be granted by the State whether found in river bed or in situ. The said aspect was determined by a Division Bench in Nar Narain Mishra v. State of U.P. and others, 2013(2) ADJ 166, wherein, inter alia, the Division Benc