Ram Swarup has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 6th April, 1996, passed by the District Magistrate, Agra, (Annexure 15 to the writ petition ). It ass been further prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to deposit the stamp duty in pursuance of the order dated 1/3-4-1996 and command the respon dents not to interfere with the right of the petitioner to excavate sand from Pura Bhagwan Ghat of river Chambal. 2. Sri P. K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, indicated the extreme urgency in the matter as a result of which while entertaining this writ petition, a counter affidavit was called by order dated 17th - April, 1996. It was further directed that the application for interim prayer shall also be taken up after the counter affidavit is filed. 3. Sri A N. Rai, Standing Counsel, has filed a counter affidavit sworn by Sudhir Kumar Misra, describing himself as the Additional Tahsildar, Sadar Agra. 4. It may be mentioned that, in the meantime, one Ram Sahai has made an application for impleadment along with a detailed counter affidavit. Smt. Sadhana Upadhyay has been heard in support of his impleadment application and also on the merits of the matter. Two separate rejoinder affidavits have been filed by the petitioner which have been taken due note of and all the learned Counsel for the parties have been, heard at substantial length. As prayed by the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage. 5. The impleadment application by Ram Sahai is allowed and he is now to be arrayed as opposite party No. 4. 6. The undisputed facts are that in November, 1994, the petitioner applied for lease of a plot of land (hereinafter referred to as the lease land) and on 26th November, 1994, lots were drawn, the petitioners offer was accepted and by order dated 9th December, 1994, the petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,38,834 as security, Rs. 1,38,834 as first instalment and Rs. 10,464 as boundary demarcation fees (SEEMA BANDHAN SHULK ). Consequently, the petitioner deposited as sum of Rs. 2,88,132 on 10th December, 1994. There was some delay in execution of the boundary demarcation which commenced only on 30th November, 1995. 1,38,834 as security, Rs. 1,38,834 as first instalment and Rs. 10,464 as boundary demarcation fees (SEEMA BANDHAN SHULK ). Consequently, the petitioner deposited as sum of Rs. 2,88,132 on 10th December, 1994. There was some delay in execution of the boundary demarcation which commenced only on 30th November, 1995. In the meantime, however, the petitioner was asked to deposit the stamp duty demanded from him to the tune of Rs. 2,29,812. It was said by the petitioners Counsel that this amount was wrongly demanded as the petitioners case was covered by the Schedule in the Stamp Act under which he was required to pay stamp for only Rs. 100. However, no decision from this Court is required on this point for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. However, the petitioner intimated the opposite parties that he had deposited Rs. 100, as advised, by challan dated 10-7-1995. 7. It so transpired that the District Magistrate passed an order on 29th February, 1996, whereby the petitioners permission to execute the lease deed was cancelled (Annexure 8 to the writ petition ). A perusal of Annexure 8 indicates that the stamp duty was demanded from the petitioner Ram Swarup, but he did not deposit the same and further that the instalment payable on 1st October, 1995, amounting to Rs. 1. 52,716 as also the instalment payable on 1st January, 1996, amounting again to Rs. 1,52,716 were not deposited by him. It is for these two reasons of non-deposit only that the petitioners right to get the lease executed was cancelled by the said order dated 29th February, 1996, passed by the District Magistrate, Agra. The petitioner filed a representation before the State Government and by order dated 21st May, 1996, the State Government directed that the District Magistrate may reconsider the matter because the petitioner had, in the meantime, already deposited the sum of Rs. 1,52,716 which stood payable on 1st October, 1995. It was further mentioned in the order of the State Government that the amount of instalment becoming payable in January, 1996, as well as the stamp paper may be permitted to be deposited by the petitioner within one month as prayed in which event the District Magistrate was directed to reconsider the matter and thus the State Government remanded the entire matter to the District Magistrate for recon sideration. It is again not in dispute that on 1st April, 1996, the District Magistrate reconsidered his order and passed a detailed order recalling Ms earlier order dated 29th February, 1996, restored the original order granting permission to excavate the lease land in favour of the petitioner and further permitted the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2,29,000 as stamp duty by 30th April, 1996. 8. In the meantime, it appears that Ram Sahai filed an application before the Commissioner or. 3rd April, 1996. The Commissioner, Agra Division, passed an order on that very day (3rd April, 1996), which, for ready reference, is quoted below: "mining without agreement for 15 months is highly irregular. The Order of the Collec tor and Distt. Magistrate cancelling the patta shall not be revoked. (BAHAL NA KIYA JAY ). Call for the file and records within three days. " The admitted position is that the District Magistrate passed yet another order on 6th April, 1996, by which he cancelled his earlier order dated 1st April, 1996, and thus proceeded to cancel the order granting lease of the lease land in favour of the petitioner and further specifically directed that the order dated 29th February, 1996, passed by him still earner stood restored thereby. It is this order dated 6th April, 1996, and the order of the Commissioner dated 3rd April, 1996, which are the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition. 9. It may be mentioned that copy of the order of the Commissioner dated 3rd April, 1996, was not made available to the petitioner and, as such, it was directed by an interim order that a copy of the said order be furnished and the State Counsel was also directed to have the entire record before this Court which he has produced. 10. Before discussing the matter, three specific arguments raised by Smt. Sadhna Upadhyaya may be dealt with. The first argument raised by her is that the State Government did not proceed in accordance with the rules in entertaining the representation of the petitioner and passing the order dated 21st March, 1996, remanding the matter to the District Magistrate. The argument proceeded that Form MM- 13 should have been accompanied with a deposit receipt of Rs. 500 so that the State Government could have been approached by the petitioner to exercise the revisional power. The argument proceeded that Form MM- 13 should have been accompanied with a deposit receipt of Rs. 500 so that the State Government could have been approached by the petitioner to exercise the revisional power. This specific course having not been adopted by the petitioner, the State Governments order is wrong and the procedure is illegal. Sri P. K. Singh has refuted this argument, 11. It may be mentioned here that Rules 78 and 79 have been incorporated in the U. P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules by the 20th amendment brought about in the year 1994. For ready reference, the said two rules are quoted below: "78. Revision.-The State Government may, either suo motu at any time or on an application made within ninety days from the date of communication of the order, call for an examination of the record relating to any order passed proceeding taken by the District Officer Committee, Director or the Divisional Commissioner under these rules and pass such orders as it may think fit. 79. The appeal under Rule 77 or an application under Rule 78 shall be presented in Form MM-13 in duplicate and be accompanied with a treasury receipt showing that a fee of five hundred rupees has been paid in Government Treasury to the credit of the State Government under the head specified under Rule 61. " It may be mentioned that while Rule 79 does create a liable to pay Rs. 500 as fee and also to use Form MM-13, it does not appear to clog the power of the State Government under Rule 78 if these two contingencies are not fulfilled prior to the filing of the revision. 12. On the factual front, it may be that there is no basis for saying that the petitioner has not deposited Rs. 500, as required under the Rules. In any case, if the sum of Rs. 500 has not been deposited, it can be demanded and paid by the petitioner in order to wipe out the technical shortage of money, as complained by Smt. Sadhan Upadhyaya. Coming to using Form MM-13, it may be mentioned that it does not lay down any such pre-condition as to preclude a proper representation being made by an aggrieved person. 500 has not been deposited, it can be demanded and paid by the petitioner in order to wipe out the technical shortage of money, as complained by Smt. Sadhan Upadhyaya. Coming to using Form MM-13, it may be mentioned that it does not lay down any such pre-condition as to preclude a proper representation being made by an aggrieved person. Form MM-13 is a communication sent by a party who may not be availing the services of some of the advocates or those who are well conversant with the rules and regulations made under the Mines and Minerals Act Therefore, the first point argued by Smt. Sadhna Upadhyaya does not render the State Governments order dated 31st March, 1996, nugatory. 13. The second point of attack by Smt. Upadhyaya concerning the State Governments order is that since the applicant opposite party Ram Sahai was not a party in the aforesaid proceeding before the State Government, he said order cannot bind him. It may be stated that so far as Ram Sahai is concerned, he is rushing up to this Court by impleadment application too late in the day. As mentioned above, the petitioners right had been finalised as early as on 9th December, 1994, inasmuch as the petitioner himself deposited the sum of Rs. 88,132 on 10th December, 1994, for execution of the lease deed which was permitted to be executed in this favour. The in-between cancellation or challenge of the said cancellation order by the petitioner before the Commissioner or the State Government was a matter between the petitioner and the District Magistrate to the exclusion of those who had already lost their rights when the District Magistrate finalised the lease rights of the petitioner Therefore, the second argument of Smt. Sadhna Upadhyaya also fails. 14. The third argument of Smt. Upadhyaya on behalf of Smt. Ram Sahai was that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he had made a wrong statement concerning deposits of money. In this connection, the learned Counsel drew the attention of this Court to the order of the State Government saying that only a sum of Rs. 14. The third argument of Smt. Upadhyaya on behalf of Smt. Ram Sahai was that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he had made a wrong statement concerning deposits of money. In this connection, the learned Counsel drew the attention of this Court to the order of the State Government saying that only a sum of Rs. 1 52 716 was said to have been paid whereas the two other sums of amount were not paid till filing of the representation by the petitioner and the State Governments direction that the petitioner may do so within one month hence was also palpably illegal for that reason. It may be stated that the State Government using its revisional powers had merely permitted some extension of time to the petitioner to pay instalments as well as the stamp duty which the petitioner has accepted now to be payable. Under the circumstances, the objection of Smt. Upadhayay has no legs to stand because admittedly, the petitioner has not been executed the lease deed as yet and one or the other obstacle has been faced by the petitioner even though he had got the order in his favour in the month of November, 1994. 15. During the course of argument Smt. Upadhyaya mentioned that Ram Sahai had infact challenged the order of November, 1994 settling lease rights in favour of petitioner but without success. Once the lease rights favouring petitioner were finalised inspite of Ram Sahais challenge, it is not permissible for Ram Sahai to file an application or appeal before the Commissioner in a dispute which had arisen between the petitioner and the District authorities. Thus it has to be held that no appeal or application lay at the instance of Ram Sahai before the Commissioner. For this reason also, the Commissioner could not pass the order dated 3rd of April, 1996 as quoted in the earlier part of this judgment. This is how all the objections raised by Smt. Upadhaya on behalf of the newly impleaded opposite party Ram Sahai have to be ignored for deciding the matter hereinafter. 16. So far as the petitioners grievance is concerned, it has to be upheld. The State Government is the ultimate authority dealing with the minor minerals and, therefore, its orders are said to be final concerning the right which are settled with individuals, particularly lease rights for excavating morem. 16. So far as the petitioners grievance is concerned, it has to be upheld. The State Government is the ultimate authority dealing with the minor minerals and, therefore, its orders are said to be final concerning the right which are settled with individuals, particularly lease rights for excavating morem. In this view of the matter, the extension of time for depositing the stamp duty was well within the powers of the State Government. To repeat, let it be noted once again that had the lease deed been executed in time, the petitioner would have, in all likelihood, paid the stamp duty and other fees in time. As mentioned above, the petitioner had challenged the liability to pay stamp duty of Rs. 2,00,000 and odd and had staked his claim that the stamp duty payable by him was only Rs. 100. As stated at the Bar by Sri P. K. Singh to the effect that the petitioner would pay the entire stamp duty demanded, that is, Rs. 2,29,000, the said amount shall be deposited within two weeks from today. Delay begets delay hence it is directed that if the petitioner deposits the aforesaid stamp duty and also if any instalment is yet outstanding, the District Magistrate shall obtain complete report about the outstanding payments and then proceed to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law provided the petitioner deposits the entire stamp duty and balance instalments, if any, within two weeks from today. 17. No other point was argued, 18. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions. The order of the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 3-4-1996, as quoted in the earlier part of the judgment and that of the District Magistrate, Agra dated 6-4-1996 (Annexure 15 to the writ petition) are quashed. The parties will bear their own costs. A certified copy of this order may be furnished to the learned Counsel on payment of usual charges within three days. Petition allowed. .