Allahabad High Court
Ram Jai Shri vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 31 March, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(3)AWC2536, (2003)2UPLBEC1322
Author: Sunil Ambwani
Bench: Sunil Ambwani
JUDGMENT Sunil Ambwani, J.
1. Heard Dr. R. G. Padia assisted by Sri Prakash Padla for petitioner and Sri S.P. Singh for respondent No. 4 as well as learned Standing Counsel for rest of the respondents.
2. Sri Bharat Lal, respondent No. 4 was granted a mining lease for excavating building stone, gitti, boulder and mild stones in respect of Plot No. 485 (area 5 acres) for a period beginning on 1.7.1994 up to 1.7.1999. He applied for renewal under Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963(in short the Rules) on 3.10.1998, and deposited Rs. 1,000 as renewal fees on 16.10.1998. The renewal application was registered on 30.10.1998, it was to be disposed of within four months and if it was not disposed of within the said period, the mining lease is deemed to have been renewed for six months from the date of its expiry to commence from the date of expiry of the original lease deed. It appears that no action was taken on this application and as such Bharat Lal approached State Government, under Rule 78, upon which a direction was issued on 19.5.1999 to the District Magistrate to decide the application expeditiously. In the meantime, the State Government introduced a new mining policy vide Government Order dated 16.3.1999 providing for auctions. Apart from the exceptions provided with regard to excavating lime stones, morang, sand, etc., this Government Order applied Chapter IV for settlement by auction to the entire area wherever minor minerals were found in the State. The policy provide in para 5 that, such orders under which lease or permit are granted shall continue, till expiration of the period of lease, but as soon as the permit expires, declaration shall be issued under Rule 23(1) of the rules for granting lease by auction, or by tender or by auction-cum-tender system, and the period of lease shall be fixed as far as possible so that the lease in respect of river bed minerals shall expire in the month of September, and for in-situ rock type mineral, to expire according to financial year. The new mining policy was upheld by this Court in Uma Crashing Stone Co. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2000 (1) AWC 433, The Court is Informed that special leave petition against the aforesaid judgment is pending,
3. The District Magistrate by his order dated 31.5.1999 rejected the application of Bharat Lal for renewal on the ground that by Government Order dated 16.3.1999, the State Government has provided for auction/ auction-cum-tender system under Rule 23(1) for the areas which became available after the enforcement of the policy. The order was communicated to Sri Bharat Lal on 2.6.1999. He did not challenge the same. This order, as such, rejecting his renewal application become final.
4. A notification was Issued on 1.3.2001 under Rule 72 inviting application in respect of the areas for which renewal has not been accepted, after new Mining Policy was enforced, including subject Plot No. 485 (area 5 acres) in village-Patti Kala, Tehsil Chunar, District Mirzapur. This notification dated 2.1.2003 has not been challenged by Bharat Lal. In the meantime by Government Order dated 30.12.2000 the Mining Policy dated 16.3.1999 was withdrawn, and the old policy with regard to grant of mining leases in Chapter-II was made applicable, and that all those existing leases which were continuing in pursuance of auction/auction-cum-tender system were provided to continue until the areas became available under Rule 24 to be withdrawn from auction system to grant of lease under Chapter-11. Para 6 of this Government Order dated 30.12.2000 provided that looking into the geographical position of area and taking into account the technical opinion of the Director of Mines and Minerals, the period of lease shall be ordinarily 3 to 5 years and the renewal shall also be made for the same period, but where the lessee has not applied under Rule 6A for renewal of lease, the area shall be treated to be vacant and shall be notified under Rule 72 for grant of lease areas.
5. In pursuance of the notification under Rule 72 dated 1.3.2001, four applications were received for grant of lease whereas Sri Vinod Kumar applied on 13.2.2001, petitioner Ram Jai Shri applied on 31.2.2001, respondent No. 4 Bharat Lal applied on 2.4.2001 and that one Sri Rangi Lal applied on 11.5.2001. The District Magistrate granted lease to Sri Ram Jai Shri vide his order dated 19.6.2001. In the meantime Bharat Lal, respondent No. 4 again applied for renewal on 17.5.2001. Aggrieved against the grant of lease to petitioner Ram Jai Shree, Bharat Lal filed an Appeal No. 200A of 2001 and Vinod Kumar filed Appeal No. 292 of 2002 before Commissioner, under Rule 77 of the rules. The appeal filed by Bharat Lal was allowed by the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Vindhyachal, and while setting aside the order dated 19.6.2001 in favour of Ram Jai Shree, the application for renewal of Bharat Lal was accepted, and the record was returned back for registration of the renewed lease in favour of Bharat Lal. The appeal filed by Vinod Kumar was dismissed with observation that in case he want mining lease in respect of Plot No. 486, he may make application under the rules. The revision has been dismissed by Special Secretary Department of Industrial Development, on 19.9.2002 upholding the order of the Commissioner, on the ground that on the date of application for renewal, the area was not made available under the new mining policy dated 16.5.1999 and that the District Magistrate was required to decide his application for renewal which was wrongly rejected by him.
6. Dr. R.G. Padia has challenged the order in appeal as confirmed by the impugned order passed by the State Government in revision on the ground that the application for renewal was filed beyond the period prescribed under Rule 8(2)(b). The same could not have been considered under new mining policy. The order rejecting the renewal was not challenged by Sri Bharat Lal. Further he did not challenge the notification dated 1.3.2001 under Rule 72 of the rules which has become final and that the area has become available for fresh grant for which Bharat Lal had also made an application which was found to be later in time than the application made by petitioner. He has also challenged the renewal application in favour of Bharat Lal on the ground that he is already a lessee of two other areas in the name of Bharat Stone Supplier.
7. Sri S. P. Singh, on the other hand, had defended the impugned orders on the ground that Bharat Lal was not communicated with the order rejecting his renewal application. The judgment in Uma Crushing Stone Co. v. State of U.P. (supra) is still under challenge before Supreme Court. The application for renewal was made within time. By the time applications were invited for fresh grant under Rule 72, the Mining Policy of 1999 was withdrawn by Government Order dated 30.12.2000 withdrawing the entire areas of State of U.P. for grant of mining lease under Chapter-II of the rules which revived Bharat Lal's application for renewal. Chapter-11 of the rules provide for right of tenure of the lease holder where lease was granted in accordance with the provisions of the rules. The order rejecting the petitioner's application for renewal was passed on a policy which subsequently withdrawn. He has also challenged the grant in favour of petitioner on the ground that he is also operating a lease in other area of the district.
8. After considering the submissions, as aforesaid, I find that respondent No. 4 had not challenged the orders dated 31.5.1999 passed by the District Magistrate rejecting his renewal application and the notification dated 1.3.2001 under Rule 72 inviting applications for grant of lease under Chapter-II. It is true that by Government Order dated 31,12.2000, the mining policy of 1998 vide Government Order dated 16.3.1999 was withdrawn, but it did not affect those areas where renewal was not granted during the period when the policy under Government Order dated 16.3.1999 was operative, and the areas became available for fresh grant vide notification under Rule 72. Bharat Lal was fully aware of this position and as such, he made an application for grant of lease in pursuance of Government Order dated 1.3.2001. His application for renewal did not survive to be revived by his application dated 17.5.2001 where the areas' were brought under Chapter-II vide notification under Rule 72, and were made available for fresh grant of lease. The application of Bharat Lal for renewal, therefore, could not survive and could not be considered. His lease expired on 1.7.1999 and did not have awaited renewal upto 17.5.2001, when he wanted to press his renewal application. Vinod Kumar was the first applicant in pursuance of the notification dated 1.3.2001 but since he did pursue the matter further, the grant in favour of Ram Jai Shri cannot be questioned or set aside, Bharat Lal was not left with any surviving interest in the area. There is no bar in holding several mining leases in the district except the restriction in Rule 10 which provides that the maximum area for mining lease should not cover a total area of thirty acres. There is nothing on record to show that the total area covered or held by petitioner exceeds thirty acres.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.5.2002 passed by the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Region, Mirzapur (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) and the order dated 18.9.2002 passed by the State Government (Annexure-16 to the writ petition) are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.