Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 606 (ALL)

Amar Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-02-19

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, YASHWANT VARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT Connect with Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No 6968 of 2016 (Sudhir Kumar Vs State of U P & 4 Ors). 2. A preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has a business interest in mining leases. This is controverted on an affidavit filed by the petitioner who states that the petitioner has never been granted any mining lease nor has he carried out any mining business. The document which has been relied upon at Annexure-1 to the short counter affidavit of the fifth respondent is a register containing details of applications for the grant of mining permits. Hence, at the highest, this will indicate that the petitioner had applied for the grant of a mining permit but it does not indicate that the petitioner is a lessee or he has been granted a lease. 3. In any event, having regard to the significant issue of public interest involved, we are of the view that it would be necessary for the Court to entertain the writ petition in public interest. 4. A mining lease has been executed in favour of the fifth respondent on 6 April 2013 for a period of three years. This lease was executed after a declaration was issued by the State Government on 31 May 2012 by which the provisions of Chapter IV of the Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules 1963 were applied so as to declare that mining leases would be granted by following the e-tendering process. The grant would, prima facie, be contrary to the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Nar Narain Mishra Vs State of U P, 2013 (2) ADJ 166 (DB) and two subsequent decisions in (i) Sukhan Singh Vs State of U P, 2014 (11) ADJ 89 (DB); and (ii) Udaypal Singh Vs State of U P, 2015 (10) ADJ 60 (DB). Moreover, the issue has been dealt with in the recent decisions of the Supreme Court in Ramakant Dwivedi Vs Rafiq Ahmad (Civil Appeal No 4 of 2016, decided on 4 January 2016) and Sulekhan Singh & Co Vs State of U P (Civil Appeal Nos 4845-4846 of 2015, decided on 4 January 2016). 5. Moreover, the issue has been dealt with in the recent decisions of the Supreme Court in Ramakant Dwivedi Vs Rafiq Ahmad (Civil Appeal No 4 of 2016, decided on 4 January 2016) and Sulekhan Singh & Co Vs State of U P (Civil Appeal Nos 4845-4846 of 2015, decided on 4 January 2016). 5. Prima facie, at this stage, it is clear from the documentary material on the record that there was no renewal of the mining lease in favour of the fifth respondent prior to 31 May 2012. The communication of the Collector, Fatehpur dated 5 December 2011, in fact, indicates that the renewal had not been granted in favour of the fifth respondent in the absence of an environment clearance. Prima facie, it appears from the communication of the Collector, Fatehpur dated 21 March 2013 that it was on 20 March 2013 that the Collector had granted permission for the mining lease. Hence, the grant of a mining lease in favour of the fifth respondent is prima facie contrary to law. 6. We, accordingly, direct both the Principal Secretary (Geology and Mining) as well as the Collector and District Magistrate, Fatehpur to file their personal affidavits in this matter. The fifth respondent shall also file his counter affidavit. The Collector and District Magistrate shall also state on affidavit the extent of mining carried out by the fifth respondent, on the basis of the mining lease dated 6 April 2013 until date. By way of an ad-interim direction, the fifth respondent shall cease and desist from carrying out any mining activities forthwith, pending further orders.