SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(All) 218

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, AMITABH KUMAR RAI, JJ.
M/S Sharad Enterprises – Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ C. No. 14386 of 2019 
Decided On : 21-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Adarsh Bhushan, Shri Ashok Khare, (Senior Advocate)
For the Respondents: C.S.C.

The authority can forfeit a mining lease security deposit for non-payment of lease installments under the terms established in the lease agreement, affirming contractual obligations.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 - Rule 58 - Mining Lease - Disputes regarding forfeiture of security deposit for non-deposit of lease installments - Petitioner's bid accepted for mining lease, but lease canceled due to non-compliance with payment schedule - The authority's decision to forfeit security is upheld as it follows contractual obligations embedded in the lease, despite arguments on jurisdictional limits of forfeiture. (Paras 10, 18, 36, 79).

(B) Jurisdiction of High Court - Writ petition can challenge forfeiture only if statutory basis is found lacking - Court confirms authority's right to enforce contractual terms regarding security forfeiture. (Paras 40, 106).

(C) Principles of Natural Justice - While the court acknowledged lack of notice in forfeiture, it opts not to remand as all contentions were addressed adequately. (Paras 95, 106).

Facts of the case:
Security deposit of Rs. 8,51,68,215/- forfeited following lease cancellation by the District Magistrate due to overdue installments, despite petitioner's claims of circumstances beyond control affecting mining operations.

Findings of Court:
Lease deed's provisions allow forfeiture of security under circumstances of non-payment of lease amount as listed therein.

Issues: Whether forfeiture was legitimate under MMDR Act and associated rules - whether natural justice was observed in the process.

Ratio Decidendi: Court tolls the enforceability of lease terms, illustrating that voluntary acceptance of terms binds the petitioner to obligations.

Result: Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. contentions around the legality of forfeiture and terms of the lease. (Para 2 , 12 , 23 , 24 , 25)
2. leases under mining regulations require compliance with payment terms. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10)
3. respondent's arguments supporting the lease conditions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 19)
4. claims regarding equal treatment and adjustment of security. (Para 22 , 30 , 32)
5. judicial interpretation of contractual obligations and natural justice. (Para 55 , 60 , 62)
6. writ petition dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 106)

JUDGMENT :

Saral Srivastava, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel-II for the State-respondents.

2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed mainly for the following relief:-

“i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 29.12.2018, only to the extent of forfeiture of the security amount of Rs. 8,51,68,215/- passed by Respondent no.3 and quashing the impugned recovery Certificate dated 14.01.2019 issued by the District Magistrate, Jalaun and impugned recovery Citation dated 23.01.2019 issued by the Tehsildar, Jhansi and to further to quash impugned Revisional order dated 12.03.2019 passed by Respondent no.2.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to adjust the security deposit of Rs. 8,51,68,215/- towards unpaid quarterly lease amount/installments.

iii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus of directing the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.2,00,00000/- (Rs. Two Crore) forcefully taken from the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned recovery certificate and citation, along with the 18% interest.”

3. The facts, in brief, are that as per the Government Policy-2017, a Government Order for settlement of leases under Chapter-IV by E- Tender/E-Auction dated 14.08.2017 was issued. The mining leases were to be granted as per the procedure prescribed under the Government Order dated 14.08.2017. The District Magistrate, Jalaun published an E- Tender notice dated 16.11.2017 for settlement of mining leases of sand and morang under U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 1963’) in District Jalaun for several mining blocks.

4. The petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid E-Tender notice submitted an online application on MSTC Portal for grant of mining lease in Village-Himanpura, Tehsil-Kaalpi, Khand No.2, measuring 20.242 hectares for a quantity of 03,03,630 cubic meters. The reserve price for the area applied by the petitioner was Rs.150/- per cubic meter. The petitioner gave bid of Rs.1122/- cubic meter as against the reserve price of Rs.150/- per cubic meter. The petitioner’s bid was found to be the highest bid. Consequently, the same was accepted by the respondents.

5. The respondent no.3-District Magistrate, Jalaun issued a Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred to as ‘LOI’) in favour of the petitioner for grant of mining lease in respect to the aforesaid area. The LOI was issued to the petitioner for a quantity of 03,03,630 cubic meters in an area of 20.242 hectares and the annual lease amount which the petitioner was to pay was Rs.34,06,72,860/-.

6. The petitioner after receiving the LOI deposited the requisite amount, namely, security money and first installment of the annual lease amount and applied for the mining plan. After obtaining the mining plan, the petitioner applied for Environment Clearance Certificate which was granted to the petitioner by the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEIAA’). Thereafter, the lease deed dated 04.04.2018 was executed in favour of the petitioner for a period of five years commencing from 04.04.2018 to 03.04.2023.

7. The further case of the petitioner was that as per the policy of the State Government, the mining operation was prohibited from 01.07.2018 to 30.09.2018 during monsoon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top