Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

M/S S.K. Enterprises Thru. Proprietor ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 19 January, 2024

Author: Abdul Moin

Bench: Abdul Moin





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:5706
 
Court No. - 5
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 57 of 2024
 
Petitioner :- M/S S.K. Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Surendra Kumar Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Geology And Mining U.P. Lko. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shishir Chandra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
 

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shiv Prasad Kushwaha, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.

With the consent of learned counsels appearing on behalf of the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.

There is consensus at bar that the facts of the case and the short grounds have already been noted in the order dated 08.01.2024. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by this Court is reproduced below:-

"1. Heard Sr J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shishir Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents.
2. The contention of learned counsel petitioner is that the petitioner had been granted a mining lease for the period from 13.12.2019 to 12.12.2024. The mining had been done by the petitioner till 30.06.2020 when the One Time Password (In short "OTP") which is issued for the purpose of issuance of transportation form for transportation of minerals was blocked. A notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.11.2020, a copy of which is annexure 8 to the writ petition under Rule 58 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1963) for determination of the lease. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to deposit the amount as was demanded in the said notice and the lease was cancelled by means of order dated 31.12.2020.
3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal and the appellate authority vide order dated 30.11.2022, a copy of which is annexure 7 to the writ petition has set aside the order impugned primarily on two grounds namely (a) that the notice under Rule 58 of the Rules, 1963 provides for a notice of payment of 30 days and the amount is to be paid within next 15 days and in the instant case as notice was issued on 18.11.2020 and the lease itself was cancelled on 31.12.2020 consequently, the period of time as per rule 58 of the Rules, 1963 was yet to lapse when the lease was cancelled and (b) the OTP had been blocked on 30.06.2020 and no mineral was lifted subsequent thereto.
4. The State being aggrieved filed a revision which has resulted in the passing of the impugned revisional order dated 26.12.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition whereby the appellate order has been set aside.
5. The contention is that both the grounds as have been referred to in the appellate order dated 30.11.2022 namely (a) that the notice under Rule 58 of the Rules, 1963 provides for a notice of payment of 30 days and the amount is to be paid within next 15 days and in the instant case as notice was issued on 18.11.2020 and the lease itself was cancelled on 31.12.2020 consequently, the period of time as per rule 58 of the Rules, 1963 was yet to lapse when the lease was cancelled and (b) the OTP had been blocked on 30.06.2020 and no mineral was lifted subsequent thereto have not even been referred to and addressed in the impugned revisional order dated 26.12.2023 and as such, on this ground alone the order impugned dated 26.12.2023 merits to be set aside.
6. Learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents prays for and is granted a week's time to seek specific instructions on the aforesaid.
7. List this case after a week as fresh.
8. Sri Shiv Prasad Kushwaha, learned Standing counsel states that till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid impugned order. The aforesaid statement is recorded."

Today, Sri Shiv Prasad Kushwaha, learned Standing counsel on the basis of instructions sent by Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Banda dated 11.01.2024 states that so far as the ground as has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner namely that the One Time Password had been blocked on 30.06.2020 and no mineral was lifted subsequent thereto is concerned, it is stated that the One Time Password was not blocked rather as the petitioner failed to deposit the lease installments as such, the MM form was not issued.

However, so far as the notice under Rule 58 of the Rules, 1963 providing for a notice for payment of thirty days and the amount to be paid within next fifteen days is concerned, Sri Kushwaha fairly admits that the cancellation order was passed prior to the expiry of the time stipulated under the Rule, 58 of the Rules, 1963. He thus states that the impugned revisional order dated 26.11.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the revisional authority to decide the matter a fresh.

Considering the fair statement given by Sri Ship Prasad Kushwaha, learned Standing counsel on the basis of instructions and the fact that the lease was cancelled on 31.12.2020 i.e prior to the expiry of the time period stipulated under Rule 58 of the Rules, 1963 which aspect of the matter has not been considered in accordance with law by the revisional authority vide order dated 26.12.2023 as such, the order impugned dated 26.12.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition is quashed. The matter is remitted to the revisional authority i.e the respondent no. 1-Principal Secretary, Department of Geology & Mining, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow to decide the revision of the State Government in accordance with law after due opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Order Date :- 19.1.2024 Pachhere/-