CHANDRA SHEIKHAR PATHSARIA v. STATE OF U P — 1996 DIGILAW 459 (ALL)

R. K. MAHAJAN, J. This order will dispose of the above two writ petitions as common question of facts and law is involved in these petitions. 2. The petitioner has sought a direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30-9-1992 (Annexure- 3 to the writ petition) received by the petitioner on 15-10-1992 passed by respondent No. 3 which relates to the cancellation of mining lease under Rule 29 of the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 as it did not carry out the condition stipulated in that rule. 3. The brief facts on which these petitions have arisen are as under : In the month of March 1992, auction took place under the orders of respondent No. 2 for the grant of mining rights under the provisions of U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) in certain plots situate in village Sagauli, Tehsil Garautha, district Jhansi for extracting stone blast. It is further alleged by the petitioner that according to Rule 29 of the Rules, the lease deed in respect of the auction in Form MM-6 has to be executed within one month of the receipt of the notice by the bidder. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not received the order of acceptance. The petitioner further alleged that he deposited on 26-3-1992 a sum of Rs. 6500 towards the lease money in the treasury. The petitioner also met the mining clerk and handed over Rs. 1675 for the purchase of necessary non-judicial stamps for the purpose of registration of the lease deed. The lease deed was duly typed and on 8-6-1992, the petitioner and respondent No. 4 on behalf of the Government of Uttar Pradesh signed the same. It was registered by the Sub-Registrar, Garautha on 23-7-1992 carrying out the formalities in Form MM-6 incor porated in the lease deed. According to the petitioner, after the grant of the lease, he invested a sum of Rs. 45,000 in the excavation work in plot No. 732 and also got blasting operations done on the site. To his surprise, the petitioner received an order dated 30-9-1992 passed by the respondent No. 3 letter of Naib-Tehsildar dated 15-10-1992 (annexures-3 and 4 to the writ petition), regarding the alleged violation of rule 29. 45,000 in the excavation work in plot No. 732 and also got blasting operations done on the site. To his surprise, the petitioner received an order dated 30-9-1992 passed by the respondent No. 3 letter of Naib-Tehsildar dated 15-10-1992 (annexures-3 and 4 to the writ petition), regarding the alleged violation of rule 29. It is also alleged that the cancellation order dated 30-9-1992 (annexure-3) is against the principles of natural justice and it is not warranted by law as it is arbitrary and has prayed for quashing of the same. 4. It may be mentioned that Writ Petition No. 43558 of 1992 was dismissed on 28-10-1992 but again the said order was recalled on 12-12-1992 by this Court. 5. The respondents in the counter-affidavit have alleged that the petitioner did not comply with the provision of Rule 29 and the lease deed was cancelled on 30-9-1992. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that the petition deserve to be accepted on the following grounds : 7. Firstly, we are of the view that there is execution of lease deed on 10-7-1992 executed on behalf of Governor by Additional District Magistrate. Once the lease is executed, it should not have been cancelled without affording opportunity of hear ing. The lease deed conferred the right of mining upon the petitioner, for a par ticular period i. e. 31-3-1997 and it cannot be taken arbitrary on mere whims of the concerned authority without pointing out the fault or breach of the condition of the lease deed. Rule 29 of the Rules is quoted with the advantage as under: "29. Execution of lease deed.- (1) When a bid or offer is finally accepted a lease deed in respect of auction lease in Form MM-6 and in respect of tender or auction-aim lender lease in a form as near thereto as the circumstances of each case may require shall be executed without one month of the receipt, by the bidder or the tenderer of f/. j letter of acceptance or within such further period as the District Officer or the Committee, as the case may be, allow in this behalf. j letter of acceptance or within such further period as the District Officer or the Committee, as the case may be, allow in this behalf. If no such deed is executed within the aforesaid period, due to any default on the part of the bidder or the tenderer the order accepting the bid or tender shall stand revoked and in that even the security deposited by the bidder or the tenderer shall be forfeited to the State Government. (2) The period of the lease shall be calculated with effect from the date of receipt of the letter of acceptance of the bid or the tender by bidder or the tenderer. (3) A copy of the lease deed together with the map of the area shall be sent by the District Officer or the Committee, as the case may be, to the Director, Geology and Mining, Uttar Pradesh, within fifteen days from the date of execution thereof. " Since the lease deed was executed, it means that the time was extended by the competent authority and this deed cannot now be repudiated. The authority is barred by its act and conduct. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order, stipulated under Rule 29 regarding the acceptance of bid or tender was not issued, so the lease deed was not executed within one month of the bid. Actually, there is no order issued in explicit terms. The counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the petitioner was made aware at the time of acceptance of the bid. We are of the view that this Rule 29 should have been complied with, as contended by the petitioner. We are also of the view that the technical argument advanced by the learned Standing Counsel looses significance. In view of the execution of the lease deed, the time to execute the deed deemed to have been extended for the execution in favour of the petitioner. 9. In view of the discussion and the reasoning recorded, we are of the view that fair procedure was not adopted in cancelling the lease deed and the principles of natural justice were also not observed. It was essential to act upon the lease deed executed by the competent authority as it created rights of livelihood in favour of the petitioner for a particular period, which cannot be snatched by the arbitrary action. It was essential to act upon the lease deed executed by the competent authority as it created rights of livelihood in favour of the petitioner for a particular period, which cannot be snatched by the arbitrary action. There is violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 10. In the result, the petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders dated 8-10-1992 contained in annexure-3 to the Writ Petition No. 43557 of 1992 and 30-9-1992 contained in annexure-3 to the Writ Petition No. 43558 of 1992, are quashed. The petitioner is entitled to excavate the mining on depositing the remain ing money within one month, for the remaining period. Petition allowed. .