Allahabad High Court
Ranjana Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 2 September, 2020
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 05 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12841 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ranjana Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
1. Heard Sri Girish Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Alok Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.04.2020 passed by the Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj in Appeal/Case No. 00348 of 2020 (Smt. Ranjana Singh Vs. District Magistrate and others), whereby the stay application of the petitioner has been rejected with the observation that during argument, the appellant's counsel could not disclose any reason for grant of stay.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly erroneous. He further submits as under:-
(i) Husband of the petitioner was granted mining lease of Yamuna river sand for 24.28 hectares situate in village Dedhawal, Tehsil Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi for a quantity of 4,85,000 cubic meter per year. Husband of the petitioner deposited the earnest money of Rs. 1,82,02,600/- by RTGS on 23.03.2018. The mining lease was executed by the respondents on 11.10.2018 which provides for payment of royalty in four instalments i.e. Ist instalment of Rs.1,85,51,250/-, Second instalment of Rs. 1,85,51,250/- payable by 01.01.2019, third instalment of Rs.1,85,51,250/- payable by 01.04.2019 and fourth instalment of Rs.1,85,51,250/- payable by 01.07.2019. The security money of Rs. 1,85,51,250/- was deposited by the husband of the petitioner. Due to extra release of water by the government in river Yamuna for Kumbh Mela, 2019, the level of water was substantially increased, in which the mining area of the husband of the petitioner including the mineral, submerged in the water due to which neither mineral could be excavated/removed nor mining operation could be carried out during most suitable time of mining. The husband of the petitioner repeatedly submitted before the respondent nos. 2 and 3 for survey of the area but no action was taken.
(ii) In view of the aforestated brief facts and circumstances, the husband of the petitioner could not deposit the third instalment.
(iii) Respondents have illegally stopped the One Time Password (OTP) for generation of transit pass in form e-MM-11 on 26.05.2019. Consequently, due to illegal stoppage of One Time Password (OTP) for generation of transit pass in form e-MM-1, the entire mining operations and removal of sand remained suspended and he could remove even the mined river sand.
(iv) The aforestated illegal act of the respondents resulted in huge loss to the husband of the petitioner on one hand and on the other hand pressure of lenders for recovery of money taken by him as a loan etc. for the aforesaid mining business.
(v) On account of aforestated brief facts and circumstances, the husband of the petitioner moved an application including application dated 17.06.2019, requesting the respondent no.2 to cancel the mining lease which was endorsed by the Additional District Magistrate (F&R), Kaushambi, but thereafter, nothing was done.
(vi) On account of the aforestated brief facts and circumstances and pressure on the husband of the petitioner as stated in paragraph no. 14 of the writ petition, the husband of the petitioner was under great stress and committed suicide on 09.07.2019.
(vii) As per Part-II of the Mining Lease Deed, the respondents could have initiated steps for recovery of instalment as arrears of land revenue, but they could not stop the One Time Password (OTP) for generation of transit pass in form e-MM-11, which caused huge losses to the husband of the petitioner and ruined the entire business, which forced him to commit suicide.
(viii) In the entire impugned order, the Divisional Commissioner has not at all considered the aforestated brief facts and reasons for grant of interim relief and, therefore, the impugned order rejecting the stay application is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
4. Sri Alok Singh, learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted 3 days time to obtain instructions particularly on the point that under which provision or under which conditions of lease deed, the One Time Password (OTP) to the husband of the petitioner for generation of transit pass in form e-MM-11 was stopped and what action was taken on the application of the husband of the petitioner for survey of mining area which according to the husband of the petitioner submerged due to extra release of water during Kumbh Mela, 2019.
5. Put up on 07.09.2020 for further hearing.
Order Date :- 02.09.2020 T.S.