The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of natural calamities and inaction by authorities, a party entitled to relief should be placed in the same position as if the wrong had not occurred, and inaction by the state government cannot be a ground for denying relief.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this petition is made to Office Memorandum dated 01.12.2020, issued by the respondent no.1, by which, the representation given by the petitioner for extension of his mining lease has been rejected. The petitioner also seeks directions that the respondent no.1 may be directed to permit the petitioner to carry out mining operation for the remaining period of four years, for which, he was deprived for carrying out the mining operation.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2014, he was granted mining lease for lifting mines and minerals for a period of 05 years. The deed was registered on 24.01.2014. The mining was to be done for 09 months in a year. The petitioner carried out mining operation, but due to flood and other natural calamities he could not continue the operation after May, 2014 as the entire mining area was covered with flood water and it had become impossible for him to carry out the mining operation. Despite those situations the respondent- authorities demanded royalty amount plus interest from the petitioner. The petitioner on 23.04.2015 made a representation requesting the authorities to limit the demand to the extent the mines and minerals were lifted by him or else to permit the petitioner to surrender his lease deed. A lot of reports were sought on his representation. The reports were given by the officers of Mining Department; by the respondent no.2, the District Magistrate, in which, it was admitted that after May, 2014, the petitioner could not carry out mining operations. In view of all those reports according to the petitioner on 17.03.2017, the respondent-State of Uttarakhand further gave six months mining lease to the petitioner. This order of the respondent no.1-the State of Uttarakhand was enforced by the respondent no.2, the District Magistrate Uttarkashi by its communication dated 20.02.2018, by which the petitioner was required to deposit a particular amount and he was permitted to carry out the mining operations till the month of June, 2016 and a specific amount of mines and minerals was specified that was to be lifted by the petitioner. The petitioner did continue the activity till June and lifted the mines and minerals.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a representation on 11.06.2018 to the respondent no.1-the State of Uttarakhand for extension of his lease deed on the ground that he could not continue mining operations for the four years due to flood and related natural calamities. That representation was never decided. Under those circumstances, the petitioner filed a writ petition WPMS No.986 of 2019, Balbeer Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and others before this Court which was decided on 23.09.2020. The Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation to the authority, with the further directions to the authority that such representation may be decided within 08 weeks since then. The petitioner filed the representation, which has been rejected, it is impugned herein.

5. The respondent no.2 has filed its counter affidavit. The factual matrix is not much in dispute. In para no.6 of its counter affidavit submitted by the respondent no.2, the District Magistrate it is stated that the petitioner carry out the mining operations in the month of June 2014, December 2014, January 2015, February 2015, March 2015 and April 2015. In para 11 although, the respondent no.2 has further stated that the petitioner did carry out mining operation from the month of March 2018 upto June 2018 also. In its counter affidavit at para no.12, the respondent no.2 has stated that there is no provision of time extension for mining lease period in Uttarakhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2001 (“the Rules”).

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has always been dutiful in performance on his part under the mining lease. After grant of leas