Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 124 (ALL)

JAGRAM SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-01-19

ARUN TANDON, HARSH KUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner before this Court was granted lease for mining of minor minerals under the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (herein after referred to as the Rules, 1963) in respect of Plot No. 1191/2, Khand-3 Area 50 acres situate at Village Sikarivyas, Tehsil Orai District Jalaun on 29.4.2005. The terms of the mining lease started from 14.7.2005. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the lease was granted for a period of three years and would therefore, expire on 13.7.2008. The petitioner started operating the mining lease and continued to do so till March, 2007. 3. An order was issued on 10.4.2007 terminating the lease of the petitioner. This order was never subjected to challenge by the petitioner. At least there is no averment in that regard in the present petition. However, after more than six years of the passing of the order of cancellation of his lease, he on the basis of some representations made before the Collector filed a writ petition before the High Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31005 of 2013 with a prayer that his representation may be directed to be considered in a time bound manner. 4. The writ petition was disposed of with an innocuous order that the representation of the petitioner may be decided. 5. In garb of deciding the representation, the State authorities have decided to issue an order to the effect that the petitioner can be considered for being permitted to run the lease afresh for a period of one year and three months which according to the petitioner represents the balance period of his lease subsequent to the cancellation of his lease under the order dated 10.4.2007. However, no formal order has been issued granting any fresh lease to the petitioner in terms of the recommendations made till date. 6. In the meantime the Collector, Jalaun has published an Advertisement for settling the lease rights in respect of the same area on 4.12.2014. This has lead to the filing of the present writ petition. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that the Advertisement for settling the lease right is illegal and he should be permitted to operate the lease for a further period of one year and three months. This has lead to the filing of the present writ petition. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that the Advertisement for settling the lease right is illegal and he should be permitted to operate the lease for a further period of one year and three months. In support of this prayer he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and others, JT 2002 (10) SC 417. In our opinion the writ petition is wholly misconceived. The order dated 10.4.2007 cancelling the lease of the petitioner has been permitted to become final between the parties. 8. In our opinion all the recommendations made by the State authorities for grant of lease rights in favour of the petitioner for a period of one year and three months afresh after eight years, appears to be wholly illegal. None of the authorities have examined the impact of the order of cancellation of the lease dated 10.4.2007 which stands on record even today. It is also worthwhile to notice that in the representation which was made by the petitioner, there was no challenge to the order terminating his lease. 9. We may also record that now conditions for grant of lease in respect of minor minerals has gone a sea change because of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2012 (4) SCC 629 ; intervention of the Ministry of Environment & Forest and the orders of the National Green Tribunal. 10. There is no statutory provision or Government Order which permits such grant of fresh rights in respect of mining as has been claimed by the petitioner in the facts of the case. 11. So far as the judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Beg Raj Singh (supra) is concerned, we find that it is clearly distinguishable in the facts of the present case. There was no order cancelling the lease for default in the aforesaid case. 12. It is also worthwhile to notice that in the representation which was made by the petitioner, there was no order terminating his lease. 13. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is dismissed. ——————