Allahabad High Court
Ranjana Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 24 October, 2019
Bench: Bala Krishna Narayana, Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32486 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ranjana Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. Heard Sri Mukesh Prasad, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Girish Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.
2. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner with following prayer :
A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the Additional District Magistrate (F&R), Kaushambi dated 11.09.2019 only to the extent of demand/recovery of the alleged balance of the annual lease amount from the petitioner.
B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the balance amount with interest after adjusting the royalty on the quantity of the minerals, excavated by the late husband of the petitioner.
C. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
D. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.
3. Apart from other grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 3, Additional District Magistrate mainly on the ground that the same is wholly without jurisdiction.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rule 58 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") provides that the State Government or any officer authorised by it on his behalf may determine the mining lease or auction lease after serving a notice on the lessee. He next submitted that under Rule 71 of the Rules, the State Government may by notification direct that any power exercisable by it under the Rules, may in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification be exercisable also by such officer or authority subordinate to the State Government as may be specified in the notification. He next submitted that the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in the exercise of his powers under Rule 71 of the Rules issued a notification on 12.12.1963 being notification no. 968 M/XVIII-F-M-68-63 (hereinafter referred to as the "Notification") directing that any power exercisable by the State Government under the rules mentioned in Column II of the Schedule of the Notification may be exercisable also by the officer specified against that entry in Column III within his jurisdiction in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in Column IV.
5. Advancing his argument in this regard further, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to S.No. 10 of Column II and III of the Notification and submitted that in view of Notification dated 12.12.1963, the power exercisable by the State Government under Rule 58 of the Rules was made exercisable also by the District Officer.
6. He lastly submitted that under Rule 2(2) of the Rules, the definition of District Officer does not include Additional District Magistrate and hence the impugned order which has been passed by the respondent no. 3, Additional District Magistrate (F&R), Kaushambi is wholly without jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed.
7. Per contra learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions in support of the impugned order.
8. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be useful to extract Rules 2(2), 58 and 71 of the Rules herein below :
Rule 2(2) : "District Officer"means the Collector or Deputy Commissioner of the district in which the land is situated.
Rule 58 : The State Government or any officer authorised by it in this behalf may determine the mining lease after serving a notice on the lessee to pay within thirty days of the receipt of the notice any amount due or dead rent under the lease including the royalty due to the State Government if it was not paid within fifteen days next after the date fixed for such payment. This right shall be in addition to and without prejudice to the right of the State Government to realise such dues from the lessee as arrears of land revenue.
Rule 71 : The State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, direct that any power exercisable by it under these rules, may in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the notification, be exercisable also by such officer or authority subordinate to the State Government as may be specified in the notification.
9. Thus, upon conjoint reading of the Rules 2(2), 58 and 71 of the Rules and the Notification, we find that a mining lease can be determined under Rule 58 of the Rules either by the State Government or by the District Officer and since the District Officer as defined under Rule 2(2) of the Rules means the Collector or Deputy Commissioner of the District in which the land is situated and does not include the Additional District Magistrate, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order dated 11.09.2019 passed by the respondent no. 3, Additional District Magistrate (F&R), Kaushambi by which the petitioner's lease has been determined is without jurisdiction and hence cannot be sustained.
10. The writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed.
11. The impugned order is hereby quashed.
12. However, liberty is given to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner afresh strictly in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 24.10.2019 SA