JUDGMENT By the Court.—The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether on renewal of mining lease, the term of renewed mining lease would commence from the date on which the renewed mining lease deed was executed or from the next date of expiry of earlier lease? 2. The petitioner was granted mining lease on 27.1.1999 for a period of five years, which was to expire on 26.1.2004. As per the provision of Rule 6-A of Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules 1963 (in brief the Rules), the application for renewal of lease had to be made by the lease holder six months before the expiry of lease. The petitioner made an application on 2.7.2003 for renewal of his mining lease. This application remained pending and meanwhile the lease period of petitioner came to an end on 26.1.2004. The District Magistrate, Mirzapur did not pass any order on the renewal application and the order was passed after more than three years. The order for renewal of mining lease was passed by the then District Magistrate, Mirzapur on 19.8.2006 and the order was issued on 21.8.2006 granting renewal of mining lease for a period of five years. This order was complied by the respondents on 12.10.2007 when renewed mining lease deed was executed on 12.10.2007 till 26.1.2009. It was also mentioned in the renewed mining lease deed that the petitioner had to pay annual dead rent in advance on 27.1.2004, 27.12.2005, 27.12.2006 and 27.12.2008. Since the earlier mining lease of the petitioner had expired on 26.1.2004 he could not work or carry out mining operation for a period of more than three years. The petitioner made a representation to the District Magistrate, Mirzapur on 25.3.2008 that the period of his mining lease be extended so that he may carry out mining for a full period of five years and the period from 27.1.2004 to 11.10.2007 be not counted in the renewed mining lease of five years. It was also stated in the representation by the petitioner that after the expiry of mining lease on 26.1.2004 the petitioner did not carry out any mining. 2. Since the representation of the petitioner was not decided by the District Magistrate, Mirzapur, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. It was also stated in the representation by the petitioner that after the expiry of mining lease on 26.1.2004 the petitioner did not carry out any mining. 2. Since the representation of the petitioner was not decided by the District Magistrate, Mirzapur, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19149 of 2008 Ajay Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and others which was disposed of by this Court on 11.4.2008 directing the District Magistrate to pass appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the District Magistrate on 6.11.2008 and in the impugned order the District Magistrate has relied upon the Government letter dated 1.5.2008 and held that the period of renewed mining lease deed cannot be extended. It is this order dated 6.11.2008 which has been challenged in this petition. 3. We have heard Sri Shyam Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Alok Kumar Singh and Sri Vishnu Pratap, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the renewal of mining lease of the petitioner was not granted because of inaction and dereliction of duty on the part of the District Magistrates, Mirzapur, who were functioning as District Magistrates, Mirzapur from 2.7.2003 to 21.8.2006 and further from 21.8.2006 till 12.10.2007 and in not performing the duties entrusted to them by law under the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules 1963 and Government Orders dated 16.10.2004 and 27.5.2005. It was further urged that the letter dated 1.5.2008, as mentioned in the impugned order, of the State Government cannot reduce the period of mining lease and cannot travel beyond the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and Rules 1963. It is lastly urged that the respondents are charging dead rent for five years, from the date of expiry of earlier mining lease but are not permitting the petitioner to carry out mining operation for five years as provided by Rule 14. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has produced the Government letter dated 1.5.2008 and has supported the impugned order of District Magistrate, Mirzapur. 6. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has produced the Government letter dated 1.5.2008 and has supported the impugned order of District Magistrate, Mirzapur. 6. Before coming to the question involved in this petition, it is necessary to point out that Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 had been framed by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of power confirmed under sub-section 1 of section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. Chapter-II of said Rules deals with the grant of mining lease of minerals. 7. Rule 5 provides for application for grant of renewal of mining lease. Rule 6 provides for application fee and deposit for grant of mining lease. Rule 6-A provides for renewal of mining lease. Rule 8 provides for disposal of such applications. Rule 14 provides provision for execution of lease deed in favour of whom the mining lease is granted. 8. Rule 14 (3) and (4) reads as under : “14. Lease deed to be executed within three months.— (3) Where an order has been made for the grant of mining lease for sand or morrum or bajari or boulder or any of these in mixed state, twenty-five per cent of the annual lease amount shall be deposited within seven days of the order or within such further period as may be allowed by the District Officer not exceeding seven days and a lease deed in Form MM-3 or in a Form as nearer thereto as the circumstance of each case may require, shall be executed within one month of the communication of the said order or within such further period as the State Government may allow in this behalf. The lease amount shall in respect of sand or morrum be determined on the basis of the average of the amounts received during the last three years from that area or the amount received in the preceding year from such area, whichever is higher and in respect of sand, bajari and boulder or any of these in mixed state, be determined on the basis of the highest amount received during the last three years. If no lease amount is deposited or no lease deed is executed within the aforesaid period due to any default on the part of the applicant, the State Government may revoke the order granting the lease in that event the application fee and security amount shall be forfeited to the State Government. (4) The date of the commencement of mining lease referred to in sub-rule (3), shall be the date on which the deed is executed under the said sub-rule or the date of actual commencement of mining operation whichever is earlier.” 9. From a close scrutiny of the aforesaid Rules we do not find anything which indicates that after renewal of lease deed on expiry of original period/term of lease deed, what will be the date of commencement of renewed mining lease. In this connection it appears that the Government has issued a letter on 1.5.2008 in the matter of one Brijesh Kumar Misra to the District Magistrate, Mirzapur clarifying the position since when the period/term of renewed mining lease deed would commence. In this connection it appears that the Government has issued a letter on 1.5.2008 in the matter of one Brijesh Kumar Misra to the District Magistrate, Mirzapur clarifying the position since when the period/term of renewed mining lease deed would commence. The letter of Government dated 1.5.2008 is extracted below : la[;k%& 1277@86&08&59@07 izss"kd] ts0ih0,u0 f}osnh] vuqlfpo] m0iz0 ‘kkluA lsok esa] ftykf/kdkjh] ehjtkiqjA HkwrRo ,oa [kfudeZ vuqHkkx y[kuÅ fnukad % 1-5-2008 fo"k;%& ek0 U;k;ky; vk;qDr] ehjtkiqj ds vknsk ds vuqdze esa Jh ctsk dqekj feJ iq= Jh jk/ks;ke feJ ds i{k esa xzke jkeiqj lDrsx<+ rglhy pqukj] tuin ehjtkiqj fLFkr vk0la0639d jdck 10-00 ,dM+ {ks= ds uohuhdj.k [kuu iV~Vs dh vof/k iV~Vk fcys[k fu"iknu frfFk ls fd;s tkus ds laca/k esaA egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d [kuu iV~Vs ds fcys[k fu"iknu fo"k;d izLrko ls lacaf/kr vkids i= la[;k&625@[kfut@[kuu iV~Vk uohuhdj.k@06 dh vksj vkidk /;ku vkd"V djrs gq;s eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ’k gqvk gS fd izdj.k esa funskd] HkwrRo ,oa [kfudeZ funs’kky; m0iz0 y[kuÅ ls vk[;k izkIr dh x;h ftlds vuqlkj ;|fi m0iz0 mi [kfut ¼ifjgkj½ fu;ekoyh 1963 esa uohuhdj.k [kuu iV~Vs ds izkjEHk gksus dh frfFk ds laca/k esa dksbZ Li"V mYys[k ugh fd;k x;k gS fdUrq loZfofnr rF; gS fd uohuhdj.k ewy [kuu iV~Vs dk gksrk gS vkSj ,slh nkk esa uohuhdj.k iV~Vs dh vofèk ds x.kuk ewy [kuu iV~Vs dh lekfIr ds vxys fnukad ls ekuh tk;sxhA 2&funskd }kjk O;Dr mDr vkH;qfDr ds vuqlkj eq>s ;g dguk gS fd d‘i;k uohuhdj.k [kuu iV~Vs dh vof/k ewy [kuu iV~Vs dh vof/k ds lekfIr ds vxys fnu ls x.kuk djrs gq, vaxzsrj dk;Zokgh djus dk d"V djsaA Hkonh;] ¼ts0ih0,u0 f}osnh½ vuqlfpo A la[;k&1277¼1½@86&08 rn~fnukad izfrfyfi funskd] HkwrRo ,oa [kfudeZ dks muds i= la[;k 1849@,e21,@2007 fof/k ¼fetkZ0½ fnukad 27&3&08 ds lanHkZ esa lwpukFkZ izsf"krA vkKk ls] ¼ts0ih0,u0 f}osnh½ vuqlfpo A 10. The District Magistrate, Mirzapur has relied on the Government letter dated 1.5.2008 in the impugned order. From bare reading of aforesaid Government letter it transpires that by the aforesaid letter the Government has clarified the date on which the renewed mining lease would commence. According to the Government letter the period/term of renewed mining lease would commence from the next date of expiry of earlier mining lease. From bare reading of aforesaid Government letter it transpires that by the aforesaid letter the Government has clarified the date on which the renewed mining lease would commence. According to the Government letter the period/term of renewed mining lease would commence from the next date of expiry of earlier mining lease. In this letter, the Government has written that under Rules 1963, it had not been mentioned that from which date the renewal of mining lease had to commence and it had been clarified that renewal of mining lease had to take place from the next date when the original lease deed had expired and the period of renewed lease deed would be counted from the next date on which the original mining lease had expired. 11. The letter dated 1.5.2008 was issued by the State Government to District Magistrate, Mirzapur as it was expected of District Magistrate, Mirzapur to renew the mining lease in compliance of the Government Order dated 27.5.2005. The argument of learned Standing Counsel that the renewal of mining lease could be made as and when the District Magistrate or the Government desires to renew the mining lease, cannot be accepted. It would frustrate the provisions of Rule 1963 and Government Orders dated 16.10.2004 and 27.5.2005. It was not the intention of the rule making authority that the renewal of mining lease could be made as and when the District Magistrate or the Government desires to renew the mining lease for a period of five years and permit the renewed mining lease holder to operate the mining lease for one or two years or for remaining period of five years term and to refuse the full period of five years from the date the renewed mining lease deed had been executed. The intention of the Government is clear in G.O. dated 27.5.2005 that the renewal order should be passed within a maximum period of one month otherwise the officers responsible for delay were liable for suitable action by the Government. For the delay committed on the part of the respondents, the mining lease holder could not be penalised, rendering his renewal to be effective only for a short period, though dead rent had been charged from the lease holder for a period of five years. 12. For the delay committed on the part of the respondents, the mining lease holder could not be penalised, rendering his renewal to be effective only for a short period, though dead rent had been charged from the lease holder for a period of five years. 12. In our opinion the approach of the Government in fixing the date of commencement of mining lease deed from the next date of expiry of original mining lease deed is contrary to the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules. If the original mining lease would commence from the date when the original deed had been executed by the District Magistrate under Rule 14(4) then the date of commencement of the renewed mining lease has to be the date on which the renewed mining lease deed had been executed. It cannot be a different date as mentioned in the letter of the Government dated 1.5.2008. It cannot be said that the mining lease deed would be executed on a particular date and it will be given retrospective operation. Rule 14 (4) is a statutory rule and different interpretation with regard to date of commencement of earlier mining lease deed or renewed mining lease deed cannot be given by an executive instruction or by Government letter dated 1.5.2008. 13. The learned Standing Counsel has urged that by the Government letter dated 1.5.2008 the Government had intended to create deeming provision by legal fiction whereby the commencement of the renewed mining lease is intended to be given effect to from the next date of the expiry of earlier lease retrospectively irrespective of date of its execution. The argument of learned Standing Counsel that by the aforesaid Government letter the Government had intended to create a legal fiction for the purpose of date of commencement of renewed lease deed wherein a deeming provision has been made whereby the commencement of renewed lease deed is intended to be effective from the next date of expiry of earlier lease. This argument is devoid of any merits. Since the Rule, 1963 has been framed in exercise of legislative function by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, it is legislative in nature. It is well settled that legal fictions are created only for some definite purpose for which they are created. This argument is devoid of any merits. Since the Rule, 1963 has been framed in exercise of legislative function by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, it is legislative in nature. It is well settled that legal fictions are created only for some definite purpose for which they are created. The effect of such legal fiction is that a position which otherwise would not obtain is deemed to obtain under certain circumstances. The creation of legal fiction is virtually legislative function. Thus where a deeming provision is made in a statute, the state of things will have to be assumed though such things do not exist and the right of parties will have to be determined on such imaginary things. The Government letter or a Government order issued by the State Government providing for a different date for commencement of renewed mining lease deed cannot be treated to be a legal fiction under a statute. No legal fiction in law can be created by an administrative order as held by the Apex Court in Vice-Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University v. Shrikant, (2006) 11 SCC 42 . 14. For the aforesaid reasons we hold that under Rule 14(4) of Rules 1963 the date of commencement of renewed mining lease would be the date on which the renewed mining lease deed had been executed, or the date of actual commencement of mining operation whichever is earlier. 15. Rule 6-A of the Rules provides that an application for renewal of mining lease has to be made at least six months before the date of expiry of the mining lease along with four copies of map of the lease hold area clearly showing the area applied for renewal along with fee of Rs. 1000/- and a certificate that there were no mining dues outstanding against the applicant as provided by Rule 6(a) & (d) of the Rules. There is no dispute that petitioner has applied for grant of mining lease on 2.7.2003 and the application of the petitioner for renewal was made in accordance with law. The respondents have also renewed the mining lease of the petitioner on 19/21.8.2006 for a period of five years. If the lease had been renewed within six months period or immediately on its expiry, the petitioner could have carried on mining operation under the renewed mining lease after 26.1.2004 and the Government would not have suffered loss of revenue. The respondents have also renewed the mining lease of the petitioner on 19/21.8.2006 for a period of five years. If the lease had been renewed within six months period or immediately on its expiry, the petitioner could have carried on mining operation under the renewed mining lease after 26.1.2004 and the Government would not have suffered loss of revenue. But the petitioner could not carry out any mining operation as his mining lease had expired. The petitioner had applied for extension of period of his renewed mining lease, as the petitioner could not carry out mining operation w.e.f. 27.1.2004 to 18.8.2006 and thereafter from 19.8.2006 up to the date of renewal of his mining lease and execution of mining lease deed on 12.10.2007. Government Order dated 16.10.2004 provides that mining lease for an amount above Rs. 5 lacs could be renewed by the State Government on the recommendation of District Magistrate. The State Government has issued another Government Order dated 27.5.2005 in continuation of earlier Government Order dated 16.10.2004. Paragraph No. 4 of the Government Order dated 27.5.2005 is extracted below : “(4) ;g lqfufpr fd;k tk,xk fd [kfut iV~Vs dh Lohd`fr uohuhdj.k ds izkFkZuk&i= izkIr gksus ds lkekU;r% 15 fnu esa ,oa vifjgk;Z ifjfLFkfr;kssaaa esa vfèkdre ,d ekg ds vUnj fu.kZ; vo; ys fy, tk,axsA bu izkFkZuk&i=ksa ij fu.kZ; ysus esa ;fn fdlh Hkh Lrj dk dksbZ foyEc gksrk gS rks lEcfU/kr vf/kdkfj;ksa dk O;fDrxr :i ls mRRkjnkf;Ro fu/kkZfjr djrs gq, dBksj n.MkRed dk;Zokgh Hkh lqfufpr dh tk,A” 16. From a reading of paragraph No. 4 of the Government Order dated 27.5.2005, it is clear that a decision has to be taken by the respondents normally within 15 days from the date of application for renewal of mining lease and in exceptional circumstances within a maximum period of one month. It further provides that if at any stage, there is delay on the part of officers in taking decision for grant of renewal of mining lease then personal responsibility of the officers would be fixed and they shall be punished accordingly. This Government Order was issued by the Government so that no delay was committed by its officers either at the District Magistrate level in making recommendation or at the level of the State Government and the matter of grant/renewal of mining lease should not be delayed as the delay causes loss of revenue to the State Government. This Government Order was issued by the Government so that no delay was committed by its officers either at the District Magistrate level in making recommendation or at the level of the State Government and the matter of grant/renewal of mining lease should not be delayed as the delay causes loss of revenue to the State Government. In paragraph No. 5 of the Government Order, it was further provided that the Government Order dated 27.5.2005 should strictly be complied with. As seen in the instant case, the Government Order was violated by successive District Magistrates and they did not care to pass an order recommending to the State Government for renewal of mining lease of the petitioner though the application was filed by the petitioner on 2.7.2003 much before the expiry of mining lease on 26.1.2004 within six months period as provided by Rule 6-A. 17. We had called for explanation from the District Magistrates who were posted as District Magistrate, Mirzapur during the period when the application was filed and till the renewed lease deed was executed. We have also issued notice to them on 15.12.2009 to show cause as to why their action may not be treated to be malice in law and their public accountability be fixed. They have tried to shift their fault on the other officers for non-existent reasons. It appears that the state machinery had become rusty. The respondents have delayed in making recommendation for renewal of mining lease of the petitioner to the State Government. An affidavit has been filed by Sri Umesh Kumar Mittal, who was posted as District Magistrate, Mirzapur between 15.12.2004 to 31.1.2007 (retired on 30.6.2008) and he has stated that he and his officers were inquiring about illegal mining being carried out in the area. In paragraph No. 12 it had been stated that on 23.2.2006, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Mirzapur submitted a report to the Mines Officer stating therein that he had inspected the area and no illegal mining activity was found by him and thereafter the matter was recommended to the Director, Geology and Mining, U.P. Lucknow for obtaining approval and after receiving the approval from the Director, Geology and Mining, U.P. Lucknow on 22.6.2006, a sanction letter for renewal of lease was signed on 19.8.2006 and was issued to the petitioner on 21.8.2006. The petitioner submitted an application on 11.1.2007 for demarcation of the renewed area and demarcation was done on 27.3.2007 and the mining lease deed was executed on 12.10.2007. It is further stated that there was no delay on the part of Sri Umesh Kumar Mittal. Another affidavit had been filed by Sri Dinesh Chandra Shukla to the effect that he was District Magistrate/District Officer, Mirzapur from 6.2.2007 to 18.9.2007. Another affidavit had been filed by Sri Dr. Hari Om, who was posted as District Magistrate/District Officer Mines, Mirzapur from 18.9.2007 to 2.6.2008. An affidavit had been filed by Sri Amrit Abhijat, who was posted as District Magistrate, Mirzapur w.e.f. 8.5.2002 to 3.11.2003 and another affidavit had been filed by Sri Ram Janam Singh, who was posted as District Magistrate, Mirzapur w.e.f. 3.11.2003 to 19.2.2004. All the four affidavits filed by the District Magistrates are similar. In affidavits the District Magistrates have not stated that the petitioner started mining operations prior to the execution of the renewed mining lease. Though we have issued notice for fixing public accountability of the District Magistrates who were posted as District Magistrate, Mirzapur during the relevant period but we refrain from fixing their public accountability and personal responsibility as the power to fix public accountability and personal responsibility of the officers had been conferred by the Government Order dated 27.5.2005 on the State Government. 18. Learned Standing Counsel has vehemently urged that there is no Rule under which the mining lease of the petitioner could be extended. It is true that there is no provision under the Rules for extension of the period of mining lease but the State Government has issued Government Order dated 27.5.2005 to safeguard the interest of the mining lease holders who apply for renewal on the one hand and on the other to protect its own interest, so that it may not suffer loss of revenue due to inaction of its officers. It is not disputed that there is a provision of renewal of mining lease and if renewal is sanctioned then a renewed mining lease deed has to be executed. We have earlier held that the date of commencement of renewed mining lease would be the date on which the renewed mining lease deed had been executed or the date of actual commencement of mining operation whichever is earlier. We have earlier held that the date of commencement of renewed mining lease would be the date on which the renewed mining lease deed had been executed or the date of actual commencement of mining operation whichever is earlier. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had started mining operations before the renewed mining was executed.The petitioner had paid dead rent for five years period. If the respondents would have acted consciously and promptly in the interest of revenue and in compliance with the Government Order dated 27.5.2005 then the lease of the petitioner would have been renewed within the period prescribed by the Government Order and the Government would have not suffered any loss of the revenue. No mining operations were carried out for about more than three years. The Government revenue had suffered. The District Magistrate, Mirzapur in the order dated 19/21.8.2006 has ordered that the lease would be renewed for a period of five years. The petitioner could not enjoy the period of full five years as the renewed lease deed was executed on 12.10.2007 and the renewed lease expired on 27.1.2009 though the petitioner had paid dead rent for full period of five years. The petitioner could carry out the mining operation only for a period of one year, three months and fourteen days. Such a situation was never visualized either by the Rule making authority or by the State Government which issued Government Orders. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2003 SC 833 which in substance lays down the law that if the non-mining operation cannot be attributed to the petitioner and for the fault of the respondents the petitioner could not carry out mining operation then the petitioner would be entitled to complete his full period of mining lease deed and for that limited period the mining lease is liable to be extended. 20. We are of the considered opinion that the date of commencement of renewed mining lease would be the date on which the renewed mining lease deed had been executed and the petitioner was entitled to carry out mining operation for a full period of five years. 20. We are of the considered opinion that the date of commencement of renewed mining lease would be the date on which the renewed mining lease deed had been executed and the petitioner was entitled to carry out mining operation for a full period of five years. Since the petitioner operated mining lease only for a period of one year, three months and fourteen days out of total period of Five Years, due to inaction and fault of the respondents, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to complete his full period of five years of mining lease and for that limited period the mining lease deed of the petitioner is liable to be extended. 21. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the order dated 6.11.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Mirzapur Annexure-16 to the writ petition is quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to operate mining operation for a full period of five years subject to adjustment of the period during which petitioner has already operated. The petitioner shall remain liable to make other payments, if already not paid, to the State Government. 22. The petitioner shall be entitled to his costs. ————