Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1871 (ALL)

MAYA DIXIT v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-06-14

RAKESH SHARMA, S.S.TIWARI

body2010
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Since the controversy involved in all the three writ petition is same and as such one common order is being passed in these three writ petitions. 2. Heard Sarvasri Mukesh Prasad, Sandeep Srivastava and Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials on record. 3. These writ petitions have been filed seeking quashing of the Government Order dated 31st May, 2010 by which the petitioners-mining lease holders, who are excavating sand (Balu, Moram & Bajari etc.) from their leased out area have been restrained from using machines for the purposes of excavating sand. The impugned Government Order dated 31st May, 2010 was issued in furtherance of an interim order passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court on 27th May, 2010 in Writ Petition No. 3879 (M/B) of 2010, Pradeep Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and others. 4. It has been categorically submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no report submitted by any of the competent authority, that is, Pollution Control Board, Director of Geology & Mining etc., which shows that the petitioners are causing any damage to the river course or they are involved in irregular or unsystematic mining activities by using heavy machinery. No report of the District Magistrates of Hamirpur, Bulandshahr and Kaushambi have been taken into account by the State Government or the Lucknow Bench of this Court to see that any illegality or irregularity is being committed by the petitioners. The petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and injury if they are restrained from using machines for excavation of sand from their lease hold-plots. The rainy season is approaching as a result of which the mining operation will remain stopped during this period for about 3-4 months due to which not only the petitioners-mining lease-holders would suffer, but the public at large, consumers of sand and the various agencies of the State and Central Governments, Construction Companies involved in laying down roads and highways as well as Builders engaged in public and private constructions activities would also immensely suffer. The prices of construction material would also escalate and the labourers involved in mining operations as well as Transporters would become jobless. The implementation of the Government Order dated 31.5.2010 would result in total stoppage of all the mining operations. The prices of construction material would also escalate and the labourers involved in mining operations as well as Transporters would become jobless. The implementation of the Government Order dated 31.5.2010 would result in total stoppage of all the mining operations. These days there is already shortage of labourers due to continuance of Central and State Governments’ sponsored schemes and considering the demand of sand etc. from the construction sector, machines have to be used for excavation of sand. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the modern world where in laying down roads, constructing multi storied buildings and bridges, highways, machines are being widely used and even the Government could not be able to achieve the goal of laying 24 Kilometres high way and roads per day, instead due to shortage of construction materials it may reduce to 10-12 Kilometres and what to say about the repairs of already existing roads and highways. Development of any country is assessed by the length and net of the roads. 5. In the present petitions, a material legal question has been raised that whether under the law of precedent, the State Government is required to ensure compliance of the directions passed in an interim order or it is bound by the binding and unchallenged final judgments of the Courts having the same Bench strength or the specific provisions contained in the amended Rule which do not prohibit use of machinery in excavation of sand, except with certain restrictions to be followed and following certain guidelines regarding maintenance of clean environment and not disturbing the course of the river and other natural factors. No such element is found in the present cases. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were granted mining leases in respect of the plots, as indicated in the writ petitions, for a period of three years by the respective District Magistrates/District Officers and Officers, Incharge, Mines. All the petitioners have completed all the necessary formalities, took part in the auction proceedings and after following due procedure they were granted mining leases for which written agreements were executed by them. All the petitioners have completed all the necessary formalities, took part in the auction proceedings and after following due procedure they were granted mining leases for which written agreements were executed by them. The first set of the petitioners are carrying on mining operations on the river bed and in the nearby area of river Betwa in the district of Hamirpur, second set of petitioners are carrying on mining operations in the nearby area of river Ganga in the district of Bulandshahr and the third set of petitioners are carrying on mining operations in the nearby area of river Yamuna in the District of Kaushambi. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners have led the Court to the scheme as contained in Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, various Government Orders, like Government Orders dated 3.12.2000, 30.11.2002, letter issued by the Director, Geology and Mines on 16.1.2003, letter dated 5.2.2003 and the Government Order dated 10.10.2004 as well as Rule 34, Rule 40 regarding liberties, powers and privileges of a lessee and Rule 41 regarding restrictions on the leaseholders and the provisions contained in Chapter-II and Chapter-IV of the said Rules. 8. After taking the Court to these Rules, learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that these Rules (specially Rule 41) do not restrict the use of machines for mining activities. In fact, Rule 41 provides that machines can be used for mining purposes as long as they do not effect the ecological balance of the area and do not cause any harm to the environment. The petitioners, in the present case, are using JCB machines and Loaders etc. for undertaking mining operations. No blasting operations are being conducted in excavation of sand. It only involved digging , scarping and collecting sand (Balu, Morang, Bajari etc.) from the river bed or the land adjacent to the river. The machines used by them are such which do not cause any ecological harm. 9. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the petitioners that to the best of their knowledge no harm to the ecological balance or to the environment had been reported by anybody to the State Government and the subordinate authorities or the officers, like, District Magistrates, Hamirpur, Bulandshahr and Kaushmabi. 9. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the petitioners that to the best of their knowledge no harm to the ecological balance or to the environment had been reported by anybody to the State Government and the subordinate authorities or the officers, like, District Magistrates, Hamirpur, Bulandshahr and Kaushmabi. No survey has been conducted nor any inspection report has been sought for by the State Government (as has been done in the Lucknow Bench’s case) before passing a blanket stopping and bald order to restrain all the mining lease-holders to use the machines for excavation of sand. In this regard attention of the Court has been drawn to Rule 34. Even three Division Benches’ and a learned Single Judge’s judgment of this Court, quoted below, do not prohibit use machines in mining operations: (1) Daya Shankar Tripathi and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(8) ADJ 683 (DB). (2) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36024 of 2005, Shakti Singh v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 2.7.2007. (3) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17830 of 2009, M/s. Kanha Enterprises, Vivek Nagar, Hamirpur and others v. The State of U.P. and others, decided on 1.4.2009 (4) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29773 of 2009, Vikas Agrawal and others v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 11.6.2009. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners have read the observations and findings recorded by the Division Bench of this Court and laid much emphasis that prohibition can only be imposed where the mining lease-holders are causing any harm to the environment and are using machines against norms laid down by the Government. Here is not a case where there existed any adverse report submitted by the Pollution Control Board’s Authorities, Mining Authority’s, Director/Officers of Directorate of Geological Survey of India or any other Government Body. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, in none of these judgments this Court has laid down that the use of machinery in excavation of sand is prohibited or strictly prohibited. What has been provided is that mining by the lease-holders by using machines should not cause any environmental damage. Certainly, as has been observed by the Division Bench in its observations dated 1.4.2009 in Civil Misc. What has been provided is that mining by the lease-holders by using machines should not cause any environmental damage. Certainly, as has been observed by the Division Bench in its observations dated 1.4.2009 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17830 of 2009, M/s. Kanha Enterprises, Vivek Nagar, Hamirpur and others v. The State of U.P. and others, the machines cannot be utilised for the purposes of destroying ecological balance or change in river course, if any. It has been further provided that when as per condition, the use of machine was allowed, then only upon giving notice it may directed to be stopped or upon giving opportunity of hearing, which is a condition precedent under Rule 41(g) of the said Rules. It has been submitted with force that when the law prescribes a thing to be followed it has to be followed strictly in the same manner as per prescription of law and in no other way. It has been further submitted that the Division Benches’ judgment reported in 2006(8) ADJ 683 (DB) (supra) and the judgment rendered on 2.7.2007 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36024 of 2005 have provided that machines could be used for mining, but it should not damage environment and course of the river etc. In the judgment of learned Single Judge in the case of Vikas Agrawal and others v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 11.6.2009 similar views have been expressed. 11. Attention of the Court has been drawn to Rule 34 of the UP. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963, which provides that wihtin a period of six months, lessess must start mining operations and during the said period the lessee can instal machine, construct roads. A bare look at this provision and the Government Order dated 16.10.2004 issued by the State Government providing guidelines for mining makes it amply clear that the machines can be used in the mining operations. Rule 34 was read before the Court. This provides that the machines can be used in connection with the mining, drilling, excavation and loading operations of the minerals. Rule 42 of the said Rules of 1963 also permits use of machines in mining activities. Rule 40 of the said Rules quoted in the writ petition provides for use of mechanical device and machinery in mining operations. 12. This provides that the machines can be used in connection with the mining, drilling, excavation and loading operations of the minerals. Rule 42 of the said Rules of 1963 also permits use of machines in mining activities. Rule 40 of the said Rules quoted in the writ petition provides for use of mechanical device and machinery in mining operations. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has read, in detail, the guidelines, contained in the Government Order dated 16.10.2004, which is still operative, and provides that the mining activities can be undertaken in scientific manner. Clause XIII of the Government Order permits the use of machines in mining operations. Even the lease deed which has been executed, does not prohibit the use of machine. Scientific explorations of minerals also includes the use of machines. The petitioners’ counsel have categorically submitted that the petitioners are not causing any environmental damage. Therefore, the State Government cannot restrain the petitioners from carrying out the mining operations and cause hindrance in day to day business of the petitioners. No restrictions can be imposed on the petitioners which are not permissible under the Rules of 1963. 13. Even the three judgments of the Division Benches and a learned Single Judge of this Court do not prohibit, mentioned above, do not prohibit use of machinery in mining operations. The machines used by the petitioners do not cause any harm to the environment as the same are being used as per norms laid down. The machines are not being used beyond permissible limits of two meters as provided in the Government Order. The petitioners had never undertaken any sort of illegal mining activities. Their activities are limited to permissible limit. There are no report from any authority that the use of machine by the petitioners is causing damage to environment and, therefore, they cannot be restrained from using the machines in mining operations. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further submitted that some frustrated group of persons, who had failed to obtain mining leases in the District of Saharanpur and the adjoining Districts and were eliminated by the successful leaseholders as a result of auction proceedings for settling the leases, had challenged renewal of leases of the lease-holders pertaining to the District of Saharanpur. Interestingly, two such writ petitions were filed by such defeated candidates desirous to carry out mining operations in the District of Saharanpur, that is, Writ Petition No. 1580 (M/B) of 2009 and Writ Petition No. 3879 (M/B) of 2010, challenging the formal approval issued by the State Government upon renewal of the leases vide order dated 26.11.2008. Interestingly, the leases were granted in respect of District Saharanpur, which falls within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court at Allahabad. Approval of renewal of leases (already granted to lease-holders several years ago) by the State Government was a mere formality which was carried out by the State Government on 26.11.2008 at Secretariat at Lucknow. Actual process of auction, execution of agreement, mining operations took place in the District of Saharanpur. The petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions, filed in the Lucknow Bench of this Court, were merely frustrated and eliminated candidates, not having any real prejudice, sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to use heavy machines in mining operations. In fact, these writ petitions were filed at the Lucknow Bench of this Court with a hidden intention just to dislodge the petitioners from mining operations and enter the scene. They were vying for the mining leases and as such they did not like that the earlier leases be renewed. It is evident from the prayer clause of the said writ petitions where in addition to prayer made to restrain the petitioner from using machines, a writ of mandamus was sought seeking a direction to the respondents to notify the area for granting fresh leases under Chapter-II or Chapter IV of the 1963 Rules. The intention of the said petitioners is clear from this relief. However, by obtaining interim orders they have become successful in eliminating all the mining lease-holders operating in a far away District like Hamirpur, Bulandshahr and Kaushambi etc. 15. The petitioners’ counsel have highlighted that the State Government’s order dated 26.11.2008 had already been acted upon as the leases were renewed in the year 2008. The lease-holders in Saharanpur and other Districts were carrying out mining operations, after renewal of their leases. In fact, the Government Order dated 26.11.2008 had already been given effect to, implemented and had exhausted itself. Thus, there is no reason to pursue the writ petitions as the same had already become infructuous on 26.11.2008. 16. The lease-holders in Saharanpur and other Districts were carrying out mining operations, after renewal of their leases. In fact, the Government Order dated 26.11.2008 had already been given effect to, implemented and had exhausted itself. Thus, there is no reason to pursue the writ petitions as the same had already become infructuous on 26.11.2008. 16. Attention of the Court has been drawn that the challenged was made in the year 2009 and thereafter in the year 2010 only with an attempt to take out skeleton from the Cupboard. However, the petition was entertained by a Division Bench of Lucknow Bench of this Court on 29.4.2010, 26.5.2010 and thereafter on 27.5.2010. These orders have been quoted in the present writ petitions and copies thereto have been annexed alongwith these writ petitions. The Court has been pleased to direct the Principal Secretary, Geology and Mining to send a team to inspect the area in question (that is Saharanpur) to find out the damage done to the river stream or the environment by use of machines. It is interesting to note that the learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the State, on the basis of the short counter-affidavit dated 26.5.2010, had stated before the Court that “mining work was being carried out manually.” It was gathered from the photographs, submitted by the petitioners with a supplementary affidavit filed on 26.5.2010, that heavy machines were being used. Surprisingly, relying on the materials brought by the interested persons, who were just interested in eliminated the legal lease-holders of District Saharanpur, the Court has observed that sufficient damage has been caused to river coasts because of use of heavy machines. The aforesaid Principal Secretary was summoned in person to the Court on 27.5.2010. The use of machines for carrying out mining works in river beds has been ordered to be stopped in the District of Saharanpur. 17. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in furtherance of the said order passed by the Court, the State Government has passed a blanket order on 31.5.2010, issued to all the District Magistrate of the State of U.P., impugned in this writ petition, prohibiting use of machinery, like, JCB, Poke Land Machine and Loader etc. for carrying out excavation of sand in the leased sites. for carrying out excavation of sand in the leased sites. The interim order passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court on 27.5.2010 has been quoted in Government Order dated 31.5.2010. All the District Magistrates (including that of Saharanpur for whom the directions have been issued by the Lucknow Bench of this Court) have been directed to ensure compliance of the Court’s order. 18. As per learned counsel for he petitioners, the State Government has wrongly interpreted the interim order of the Court as a legal precedent and had issued a Government Order on 31.5.2010, though such orders are generally issued through a Gazette Notification. Issuance of this order would result in stoppage of entire mining operations being carried out by the petitioners. Since the interim order dated 27.5.2010 is merely an interim order issued to the District Magistrate of Saharanpur alone and the mining lease-holders of that District. It is not everything said in that interim order that constitutes a legal precedent. The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a Court has been decided is alone binding as precedent. A decision is available as a legal precedent only if it decides a question of law. Much confusion has been created by issuance of this Government Order. The petitioners are being restrained from carrying out their mining operations, while they were not parties to the writ petitions at Lucknow Bench of this Court. Observations and directions contained in the interim order of the Lucknow Bench of this Court which relates to District Saharanpur cannot adversely affect the petitioners and rather cannot snatch livelihood of the petitioners who are carrying out their business in the Districts of Hamirpur, Bulandshahr and Kaushambi. The State Government has failed to appreciate that if the Lucknow Bench of this Court, while passing the interim order, was not agreeable to the several decisions of the Hon’ble Court, which have been mentioned in the Government Order dated 31.5.2010, itself, then the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench would have referred the matter to a larger Bench for consideration. Thus, the interim orders should be read in furtherance of the decisions of this Hon’ble Court in respect of use of machines for mining operations and not in derogation of the same. Thus, the interim orders should be read in furtherance of the decisions of this Hon’ble Court in respect of use of machines for mining operations and not in derogation of the same. Even the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd., 1991 AIR SC 818 has said that the leases should be granted to the person who can exploit the minerals in the most scientific manner. 19. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioners. In case of any alleged breach of condition enunciated in Rule 41(g) of 1963 Rules, there cannot be a blanket ban on mining. The petitioners are working in the Districts of Hamirpur, Bulandshahr and Kaushambi and there is no material to show that they had violated terms and conditions of the agreement or they are causing any damage to the environment or their activities are injurious to the ecological balance. None of the petitioners were associated with the proceedings in the Lucknow Bench of this Court. The dispute before the Lucknow Bench of this Court was between the two sets of persons, one, those who have challenged renewal of mining leases and the other State Government and the valid and legal lease-holders of Saharanpur District. By imposing a blanket ban by the Government Order dated 31.5.2010, the State Government had, in fact, over-ridden all the interim orders as well as the final judgments passed by this Court in various writ petitions as referred to above in respect of use of machines by the lease-holders. Thus, the Government order dated 31.5.2010 has not been issued in exercise of power under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. 20. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and has drawn attention of the Court to Rule 68 of the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963, sub-section (2) of Section 4-A of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and other provisions to show that the State Government has wide powers to order for premature termination of mining leases. It is empowered to issue such directions for regulating mining operations for preservation of natural environment, control of floods, prevention of environment damage or to avoid danger to public health. It is empowered to issue such directions for regulating mining operations for preservation of natural environment, control of floods, prevention of environment damage or to avoid danger to public health. The State Government has issued the Government Order in compliance of the directions contained in the interim order dated 27.5.2010, passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court. The said order is just, valid, legal and proper. However, he would like to file a counter-affidavit. 21. Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioners have pointed out that, in fact, the State Government has supported the case of the leaseholders and order of renewal of leases passed by the State Government before the Lucknow Bench of the Court. In the short counter-affidavit in the Lucknow Bench of this Court, the Standing Counsel has stated that the mining operations were being carried out manually and not by machines. Even then the impugned Government Order has been passed in respect of different Districts far away from the District of Saharanpur and even the rivers and their nature of flow as well as geography is different. 22. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length at the admission stage. The Court has also gone through the aforesaid judgments of the Division Benches, learned Single Judge and the orders passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court. 23. There appears to be force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are stranger to the dispute which is going on at Lucknow Bench. They were not associated with the proceedings as the dispute was raised by certain candidates challenging the grant of renewal of mining leases in the District of Saharanpur. It is very strange to note that how the Government has passed a blanket order directing all the District Magistrates of Uttar Pradesh to ensure stoppage of mining operations where machines are being used for excavation of sand (Balu, Bazari and Morang etc.). The State Government has not ordered for carrying out any inspection or sought reports from the concerned District Magistrates/Officers, Incharge, Mining Operations of the Districts whether any mining activities detrimental to the environment are being carried out in the leased area. 24. The State Government has not ordered for carrying out any inspection or sought reports from the concerned District Magistrates/Officers, Incharge, Mining Operations of the Districts whether any mining activities detrimental to the environment are being carried out in the leased area. 24. In the present case, the State Government has also not carried out any survey or inspection in all the Districts of Uttar Pradesh, though there was 3-4 days’ time, after receiving the interim order dated 27.5.2010, during which the State Government could have asked for a report from the District Magistrates in this regard before issuing a bald and blanket order stopping use of machine for mining operations. The scheme of the Act and Rules, referred to above in the foregoing paragraphs do not completely prohibit use of machines in excavation of sand in such mining operations. Of course, the mining operations are to be supervised and restrictions can be imposed, rather mining could be stopped and leases could be cancelled if the leaseholders are destroying the ecological balance, environment or changing the course of the river. It could have been a situation in the district of Saharanpur, but how could the State Government, sitting in the Secretariat at Lucknow can imagine and form an opinion about mining operations in the Districts of Hamirpur, Bulandshahr and Kaushambi that similar activities are going on in these Districts also which have been observed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in respect of District of Saharanpur. It appears to be a case of blind and mechanical application of mind by the State Government. The law, as has been observed by the Division Bench of this Court, that mining in such conditions can be cancelled, but that too, after following due procedure as prescribed in Rule 41(g) of the aforementioned Rules. A prior notice has to be given to the lease-holder, opportunity of hearing has to be afforded and only thereafter such a drastic action of cancellation of lease can be carried out or a lease-holder be stopped from carrying out mining operations manually or through use of machinery. There is nothing of that sort in the present case which may warrant any order restricting use of machinery in excavation of sand and similar mining operations in other district of U.P. 25. These days machinery is being rapidly used in road building and other constructions related activities. There is nothing of that sort in the present case which may warrant any order restricting use of machinery in excavation of sand and similar mining operations in other district of U.P. 25. These days machinery is being rapidly used in road building and other constructions related activities. In the old days, the roads were being laid manually, but now a days machines are being used for repairing and laying down roads, highways and bridges. Even in the agricultural operations, the farmers are using machines for harvesting and irrigation in the rural India. Thus, use of machine is need of the day, but with a caution that it may not damage environment or disturb the ecological balance. If the Government Order dated 31.5.2010 is permitted to continue, it may result in showing all the construction activities, private or public, laying down of roads, either in Cities, Villages or the National Highways. The roads and highways are the life line of any State/Country. 26. In view of the discussions made above, the petitioners have established a bona fide case and balance of convenience is in their favour. They would certainly suffer irreparable loss and injury if they are not permitted to carry out mining operations property in their respective leased areas as the rainy season is approaching and the sand (Balu, Morang and Bajari etc.) as a result of which the mining operations would remain stopped for about four months. Thus, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and injury. Interestingly, the State Exchequer would also suffer a loss of a substantial amount which are being received as mining royalty. In the facts and circumstances of the case, cancellation of leases or stoppage of mining operations will not be in the public interest. 27. In view of the above, the implementation and operation of the impugned Government Order dated 31.5.2010 shall remain stayed till further orders of the Court. 28. In the facts and circumstances of the case, cancellation of leases or stoppage of mining operations will not be in the public interest. 27. In view of the above, the implementation and operation of the impugned Government Order dated 31.5.2010 shall remain stayed till further orders of the Court. 28. After a careful consideration of the aforementioned final and binding judgments rendered by this Court at Allahabad and the interim orders passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court, this Court is of the opinion that the issues already settled by the judgments of this Court are being tried to be unsettled by filing writ petitions before the Lucknow Bench of this Court, thus, it would be appropriate, in the interest of justice, that the issue and the controversy raised be dealt with and concluded by a larger Bench of this Court at Allahabad, under whose jurisdiction such mining areas in Uttar Pradesh fall. Even the District of Saharanpur, mining operations of which are in issue before the Lucknow Bench of this Court, falls within the jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of this Court at Allahabad. Apparently, there are contradictory views expressed by the Benches at Lucknow and Allahabad. the final and unchallenged judgments rendered by the Division Benches of this Court at Allahabad have binding effect and if this Court has to choose between an interim order and a final and binding judgments rendered by the Division Benches and learned Single Judge on the subject, this Court will certainly follow the final verdict the judgments of the Division Benchs and is not going to form its opinion on the basis of an interim order where the writ petition is still pending disposal and awaiting judgment on merits. After detailed considerations and taking note of the judgments on the subject, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench. During the last 3-4 years, several writ petitions have been filed raising such issues on which interim orders and final decisions have been rendered. Taking note of different note contradictory views expressed by the different Benches, it would be appropriate that an authoritative pronouncement is made by this Court so that the issue is laid at rest. During the last 3-4 years, several writ petitions have been filed raising such issues on which interim orders and final decisions have been rendered. Taking note of different note contradictory views expressed by the different Benches, it would be appropriate that an authoritative pronouncement is made by this Court so that the issue is laid at rest. Thus, the following questions of law be referred for determination to the Larger Bench : (1) Whether such a blanket Government Order, prohibiting use of Machinery, which is against the spirit of Statutory Rules and the final and binding judgments rendered by the Divisions Benches of this Court at Allahabad, can be issued on the basis of an interim order passed by a Division Bench of this Court at Lucknow, when there are already three binding, final and unchallenged judgments of the Division Benches and a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court of Principal Seat at Allahabad on the subject? (2) Whether the interim order dated 27.5.2010, passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court, not exercising P.I.L. Jurisdiction, and other interim orders on the basis of which Government Order dated 31.5.2010, imposing complete ban on use of machinery in mining operations on the riverbeds or nearby areas could be issued, when Division Benches and the Learned Single Judge of this Court at Allahabad have not ordered for total prohibition on use of Machines for excavation of sand? (3) Whether such interim orders do not lay down any law per incurium on the point, as discussed above, when the controversy has already been settled by various judicial pronouncements of this Court at Principal Seat of the High Court at Allahabad? 29. In view of above discussions, it would also be appropriate that the Hon’ble The Chief Justice may like to invoke powers under Clause 14 of the relevant Amalgamation Order and to pass appropriate orders for clubbing all the cases and transferring such matters from Lucknow Bench of this Court to the Principal Seat at Allahabad High Court for adjudication and disposal. 30. Let the records be laid before Hon’ble The Chief Justice/Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice/Hon’ble Senior Vacation Judge for passing appropriate orders. ————