Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 183 (ALL)

SHAKTI STONE WORKS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2000-02-01

D.S.SINHA, O.BHATT

body2000
D. S. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Raj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri Sanjay goswami, the learned standing counsel of the State of U. P. . representing the respondents. ( 2 ) THE principal prayer of the petitioner is that this Court may by a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus command the respondents to issue a fresh lot of MM-11 Forms envisaged in rule 70 of the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules. 1963. hereinafter called the rules. The undisputed facts giving rise to the petition are these. ( 3 ) THE petitioner applied for grant of mining lease under Chapter-11 of the Rules. The mining lease was granted to him on 9. 12. 1994 for a period of ten years, i. e. . from 16. 1. 1995 to 15. 1. 2005, for mining building stones (Gttti, Boulders), in the area of plot Nos. 1650 M and 3607 measuring 2. 65 acres situate in village Billi Markundi, Pargana Agori, Tehsil Robertsganj. district Sonbhadra. ( 4 ) THE lease was duly executed and registered. The petitioner deposited dead rent and also paid royalty. ( 5 ) IN pursuance of the lease, the petitioner was issued 100 Forms MM-11, which every holder of mining lease or mining permit or a person authorised by him in that behalf has to issue to every person carrying a consignment of minor minerals by a vehicle, animal or any other mode of transport. ( 6 ) FORM MM-11 is necessary for carrying within Uttar Pradesh minor mineral by a vehicle, animal or any other transport, excepting Railway. This Form has to be produced by every person carrying any minor mineral on demand by any officer of the State Government authorised in this behalf for verification of the correctness of the pass with reference to the quantity of the minor mineral. ( 7 ) AFTER exhausting 100 Forms Issued to him, the petitioner moved an application on 8. 6. 1995 and applied to the respondent No. 3 for issuance of a fresh lot of forms for the purposes of carrying on the mining work and business. No attention was paid to the application of the petitioner. Therefore, he made another application on 15. 8. 1995 for the purpose. This application also went unheeded. Eventually on 30. 10. 6. 1995 and applied to the respondent No. 3 for issuance of a fresh lot of forms for the purposes of carrying on the mining work and business. No attention was paid to the application of the petitioner. Therefore, he made another application on 15. 8. 1995 for the purpose. This application also went unheeded. Eventually on 30. 10. 1995 he made third application praying for issuance of form MM-11. Again the respondents took no action. ( 8 ) UNDER the circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by means of Instant writ petition. ( 9 ) WHILE entertaining the petition on 4. 1. 1996, the Court granted to the respondents a months time for filing counter-affidavit. More than four years have elapsed. The office report recorded on the ordersheet indicates that the respondents have not cared to file the counter-affidavit. Thus, the averments made in the petition are unrebutted and are accepted to be prima facie true. ( 10 ) IT is not disputed that the petitioner is a mining lease holder, and that his lease is subsisting. It is also not disputed that the petitioner made three applications for issuance of Form MM-11. which is necessary for the purposes of transporting the minerals by the petitioner. Further, it is not disputed that the applications of the petitioner have not been disposed of. ( 11 ) AS noticed earlier, Form MM-11 is absolutely necessary for the purposes of transporting minerals by the petitioner, as provided in Rule 70 of the Rules. If Form MM-11 is not Issued to a mining lease holder or mining permit, the purpose of grant of mining lease, or permit would, obviously, be frustrated. In the absence of any impediment, the respondent No. 3 is obliged to issue Form MM-11 to a mining lease or mining permit holder, and no Impediment against the issuance of Form MM-11 to the petitioner has been brought to the notice of the Court. This apart, the respondent No. 3 was under legal obligation to dispose of the applications of the petitioner for issuance of Form MM-11, but he has failed to do so. ( 12 ) IT may be recalled that on 4. 1. 1996. when it entertained the petition, the Court passed the following order : ". . . . . This apart, the respondent No. 3 was under legal obligation to dispose of the applications of the petitioner for issuance of Form MM-11, but he has failed to do so. ( 12 ) IT may be recalled that on 4. 1. 1996. when it entertained the petition, the Court passed the following order : ". . . . . In the meantime if the petitioner pays the royalty and makes an application for continuing with the mining rights, the said application shall be disposed of in accordance with law within a period of ten days of making of the said deposit and production of a certified copy of this order. " ( 13 ) SRI Raj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, states at Bar that the petitioner complied the direction given by this Court and despite due compliance by the petitioner, the applications of the petilioner have not been disposed of so far. ( 14 ) ON the facts and circumstances noticed above, the Court is of the opinion that the stage is set for issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondents generally, and the respondent No. 3 specifically, to dispose of the applications of the petitioner, noticed hereinbefore, and if. there is no legal impediment, to issue to the petitioner Form MM-11. ( 15 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents generally, and the respondent No. 3 specifically, are directed to dispose of the applications of the petitioner expeditiously. and if there is no legal impediment, to issue Form MM-11 applied for by the petitioner. There is no order as to costs. .