Petitioners sought directions for Block Pramukhs' participation in District Mineral Foundation Trust. Court dismissed petition as premature due to pending representations, directing a fresh representation to be filed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 4
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1614 of 2019
Petitioner :- Prashant Singh Pramukh And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Bhan Yadav,Anoop Baranwal,Ashok Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D.P. Singh(Sr. Advocate)
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri D.P.Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anoop Barnwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel respondent nos.1 to 13.
The instant Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioners, who are 8 in numbers, claiming themselves to be newly elected Block Pramukhs of different blocks in District Sonbhadra, with the following prayers:
"(i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction issuing guidelines to ensure the effective participation of the democratic body of the petitioner's Kshettra Panchayat in the Governing Council and Managing Committee of the D.M.F. trust established under the U.P. District Mineral Foundation Trust Rules, 2017 to fill the vacuum occurring in this Rules till such time the legislature steps in to cover the gap or the executive discharges its role.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to ensure the Account of the District Mineral Foundation Trust (D.M.F. Trust) opened at the Block headquarter in the district – Sonbhadra to be operated with the joint signature of the Pramukh of the Kshettra Panchayat and Block Development Officer of their respective Kshettra Panchayats as per guiding provisions of Section 101A the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Ac, 1961 to fill the vaccum occurring in Rule, 2017 till such time the legislature steps in to cover the gap or the executive discharges its role.
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent to decide the matter involved in representation of the petitioners dated 08.07.2019, 21.07.2019 and 31.07.2019 in respect of ensuring the effective participation of the democratic body of the petitioner's Kshettra Panchayat in the Governing Council and Managing Committee of the D.M.F. trust as well as in respect of ensuring the Account
of D.M.F. Trust opened at the Block headquarter in the districtSonbhadra to be operated with the joint signature of the Pramukh of the Kshettra Panchayat and Block Development Officer of their respective Kshettra Panchayat."
The grievance of the petitioners essentially appears to be that the U.P. District Mineral Foundation Trust Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") framed by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of its power conferred by sub section (3) of sections 9-B, 15 and 15A of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (Act No.7 of 1957), is for regulating the composition and function of the District Mineral Foundation Trust is against the spirit of Articles 242 and 243 of part 9 of the Constitution of India as the said Rules do not contemplate or envisage any participation of the elected Block Pramukhs who represent their respective Blocks in the management and governance of District Mineral Foundation Trust.
It is noteworthy that petitioners have not challenged the vires of Rules of 2017 and the record further indicates that for redressal of their grievance petitioners have already filed representations on 8.7.2019, 21.7.2019 and 31.7.2019 before respondent nos.1 and 2, respectively, copies whereof have been brought on record as Annexures 7, 8 and 9 to the writ petition. Record further indicates that no decision has been taken by respondent nos.1 and 2 only on the petitioner's representation despite lapse of a considerable time.
Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the authority competent to look into the complaint of the petitioners is respondent no.1 and since the petitioners have already represented before respondent nos.1 and 2 and their representations are still pending, instant writ petition is premature and is liable to be dismissed as such.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we find, that the petitioners have already filed representations before respondent nos.1 and 2 raising all the grievances, which have taken by them in this writ petition and the aforesaid representations have not been decided till date.
In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on merits of the petitioners' case, we dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh comprehensive representation before respondent no.1, State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Lucknow along with a certified copy of this order within a period of four weeks from
today. In case, any such representation is filed before respondent no.1 within the period indicated herein above, the same shall be dealt with and decided by respondent no.1 in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioners.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 AKJ
Prashant Singh Pramukh and 7 others
State of U.P. and 12 others
Bala Krishna Narayana
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
