JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the condition No. 8 of the notice dated 4.12.2007 issued by Addl. District Magistrate (Administration), Bijnor, respondent No. 3 and notice dated 16.10.2007 issued by the same authority. 2. We have heard Shri Mukesh Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vishnu Pratap, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. It appears from the contents of the petition that on 16.10.2007, a notice was issued by District Magistrate, Bijnor under Rule 72 of the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter called as ‘Rules’) declaring availability of 25 acres area for grant of mining lease for a period of three years, under Chapter II of the said Rules, in district Bijnor and inviting applications after expiry of the period of one month from the date of notice. In pursuance of notice issued by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner firm applied in form MM-1 for grant of mining lease for plots mentioned in para 5 of the writ petition measuring 20.83 acres in village Barampur, tehsil Nagina, district Bijnor. The respondent No. 3 issued a notice (Annexure-3) dated 4.12.2007, informing the petitioner that his application was incomplete and he was asked to remove the shortcomings between the period of 5th December 2007 to 13th December, 2007 and a warning was also given that if the application was not completed within the said period then after awaiting only 7 days it could be presumed that the petitioner has nothing to say in this regard. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the notice (Annexure-3) was issued under Rule 6(2), which is quoted below : “If the application is not complete in any respect or is not accompanied by the fee, deposit or the documents mentioned in sub-rule (1), the District Officer or the Officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf, by fifteen days notice require the applicant to complete the application in all respects or, to deposit the fee or furnish the documents within such time as may be specified in the notice and if the applicant fails to do so within the specified time, such application shall not be considered.” 5. It was the mandatory requirement of the said Rules that the District Magistrate in his notice to specify the shortcomings of the application form but in the notice (Annexure-3) it was not specified what paper was lacking and whether any fee was due. This notice was vague, moreover, the time to complete the application was given from 5.12.2007 to 13.12.2007, i.e. about 9 days, whereas a clear period of 15 days should have been given as required by the Rules. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that in the notice it was written that the authority had to wait for further 7 days and thus the period of 15 days was completed. This argument of the learned Standing Counsel was also vague because to remove the shortcomings in the application a clear period of 15 days should have been granted, therefore, notice dated 4.12.2007 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) deserves to be quashed. 6. Another point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that para 3(6) of the Government Order No. 494/mining section-07 dated 16.10.2007, it has been provided that every mining operation, which is made on the private land, consent of the owner of the land must be obtained. Para 3(6) is quoted below : ÞvkosnudrkZ dh futh Hkw&Lokfeksa ls lgefr ÁkIr fd;k tkuk vko;d gksxkAÞ 7. But this requirement is no more because in the old Rule 9A (3) (II), it was provided the consent of the land holder must be obtained in writing and that rule has now been omitted by Notification No. 1666/7705-2004-8(204)/95 dated 22nd June, 2004 published in U.P. Gazette VI, Section Kha, dated 26th June, 2004. Now in view of the said amendment it is not at all required for any applicant to get no objection certificate from the land holder. 8. In view of our above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the District Magistrate, Banda has not fulfilled the requirements of Rule 6(2) and notice dated 4.12.2007 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) issued to the petitioner is quashed. Let fresh notice be given by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner under Rule 6(2) within a week from today and after expiry of the statutory period the preferential rights be decided according to Rule 9(2). The petitioner be not asked to file no objection certificate from the land holder. 9. Let fresh notice be given by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner under Rule 6(2) within a week from today and after expiry of the statutory period the preferential rights be decided according to Rule 9(2). The petitioner be not asked to file no objection certificate from the land holder. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of. 10. Let a copy of the judgment be given to the learned Counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges and learned Standing Counsel free of cost today. ————