Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 210 (ALL)

RAJESH KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-02-03

ARUN TANDON, HARSH KUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Brajesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Petitioner, before this Court, was granted lease under Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 1963”) in the year 2003 for a period of 5 years i.e. between 9th December, 2003 to 8th December, 2008. It is the case of the petitioner that he made an application for renewal of the lease well within time in accordance with Rule-6A of Rules, 1963. The application was been granted and a fresh lease was executed on 22nd February, 2010. 2. According to the petitioner, the term of the renewed lease has been fixed as 9th December, 2008 to 8th December, 2013. 3. It is further stated that the petitioner could not carry out the mining operations between 9th December, 2008 to 21st February, 2010 i.e. the period during which order for renewal of his lease had not been made and therefore, he made an application for grant of a fresh lease for the said period of 1 year, 2 months and 12 days. In the alternative it is submitted that the period of lease should be counted from the date of execution of the renewed dead i.e. 22nd February, 2010 and therefore, he is entitled to continue to operate the lease till 21st February, 2015. Representation made by the petitioner for the said reliefs has gone unheard. He has, therefore, approached this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the State-authorities to extend the period of lease of the petitioner for a period of 1 year, 2 months and 12 days and further not to grant any mining lease in respect of the plot in question. In the alternative, he has prayed for his consideration of his representation dated 9th February, 2014. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Division Bench judgment of the High Court dated 21st December, 2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 67371 of 2009 (Ajay Kumar Singh v. The State of U.P. and others) as also to another Division Bench judgment of the High Court dated 28th November, 2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 41132 of 2011 (Heera Lal v. State of U.P. and others). He has also referred to the Government Order dated 31st July, 2014 where-under the State Government has permitted for extension of the term of the lease for the period when the lease holder has been stopped from mining for the reasons beyond his control/reasons for which he cannot be held responsible. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. 6. We may, at the very outset, record that the issue of operation of lease for the purposes of excavation of mines and minerals vis-a-vis the impact on environment pollution has been subject-matter of consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, (2012) 4 SCC 629 . The Apex Court, while deciding the said case, has issued specific directions to the States Authorities including the State of Uttar Pradesh that neither any fresh lease shall be issued nor any renewal shall be granted, unless environmental clearance is obtained. The State Authorities have been directed to adopt the modal rules framed by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, Delhi in the matter. 7. In compliance to the said judgment of the Apex Court, the State of Uttar Pradesh has made 35th, 36th and 37th Amendments in Rules, 1963. With the enforcement of the aforesaid amendments in Rules, 1963 in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Kumar (Supra) under the Government Order dated 22nd October, 2014, it has now been provided that all such applications, which were pending either in the matter of grant of fresh lease or in the matter of renewal of the lease shall stand rejected and settlement of rights for mining shall now be affected only in accordance with the amended provisions. Government Order dated 22nd October, 2014 is not under challenge in the present writ petition. 8. Government Order dated 22nd October, 2014 is not under challenge in the present writ petition. 8. A Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Nar Narayan Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2013 (2) ADJ 166 , has laid down that all the applications for grant of lease in respect of minor minerals are to be considered only in accordance with the provisions, as applicable on the date of consideration of the application and not with reference to the date on which the application was made. 9. In the totality of the facts & circumstances, as are on record, we do not find any good ground to issue any mandamus as has been prayed for in the present writ petition. Both the Division Bench Judgments relied upon by the petitioner i.e. in the case of Ajay Kumar Singh (Supra) and Heera Lal (Supra) are clearly distinguishable in view of the changed situation as noticed by us herein above. The Government Order dated 31st July, 2014 relied upon by the petitioner stands superseded by the Government Order dated 22nd October, 2014. For the aforesaid reasons, the present writ petition stands dismissed. ——————