Ram Jai Shri vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 31 March, 2003
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,