Disposed

M/S Salkhan Lime Works v. State of U.P. and 6 Ors.

Allahabad HC30 Oct 2019WRIC/18422/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition filed for renewal of a mining lease rejected by the State Government. Directed the competent authority to consider a fresh representation from the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

Permitted petitioner to file a fresh representation before the competent authority; directed authority to pass appropriate orders within three months.

M/S Salkhan Lime Works Vs State of U.P. and 6 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18422 of 2016

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Salkhan Lime Works Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Dubey,Ananya Pandey,Ashish Dubey,C.L. Pandey,Chhaya Gupta,Sujeet Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Chhaya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General/Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for all the respondents.

¶6

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following main prayers :-

¶7

" i) issue Issue a writ order direction in nature of mandamus commanding respondents to allow the petitioner excavation of limestone on its leased area for a period of 3 years 11 months 19 days in pursuance of application dated 13.5.2014 of the petitioner as allowed by this Hon'ble Court vide its judgment and order dated 2.5.2014 passed in writ petition no.22770 of 2004.

¶8

ii) issue a writ order direction in nature of mandamus directing respondents to permit the petitioner for mining operation/excavation of limestone in its leased area for the period against which the petitioner was prevented by the respondents during the subsistence of its lease which continued from 1994 till 2014."

¶9

The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner had applied for mining lease of limestone under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1957), wherein Section 8 clearly provides that the maximum period for which a minimum lease may be granted shall not exceed 30 years. However, the proviso of Section 8 (1) of the Act further provides that a minimum period for which any such mining lease may be granted shall not be less than 20 years.

¶10

After the period of the mining lease came to an end an application was submitted by the petitioner for renewal of the

¶11

same but the same was illegally rejected by the order passed by the State Government dated 21.5.2004. The order dated 21.5.2004 passed by the State Government was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing Writ C No.22770 of 2004 (M/s. Salkhan Lime Works Pipri Road, Robertsganj, District Sonebhadra, through its Partner Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others) The said writ petition was finally decided by another Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgement and order dated 2.5.2014. The operative portion of the judgement is reproduced hereinbelow :-

¶12

"In the instant case details as to for what periods the petitioner was denied mining rights under his lease deed (Annexure-1) or was denied mining rights under the interim order dated 17.06.2004 passed in this writ petition are not available. Hence such a circumstance cannot be considered in this petition nor any order can be issued herein to allow the petitioner to operate the mine for that period.

¶13

Therefore it would be appropriate that the petitioner if he so desires, may apply before the Competent Authority under the 1963 Rules for being given the benefit of mining operations to the extent of those periods when he was prevented from such operations during the subsistence of his lease from 11.02.1994 to 07.06.2004 in light of the judgment in the case of Beg Raj Singh (Supra).

¶14

This writ petition is accordingly finally disposed of by providing that the petitioner may make his application before the Competent Authority within two weeks where after the Competent Authority may make necessary inquiry to find out the period when the petitioner was prevented mining operations during his lease period and pass a reasoned order within four weeks thereafter.

¶15

In the event the Competent Authority concludes that for some period between 11.02.1994 to 07.06.2004 the petitioner was illegally denied his mining rights then it should consider the grievance of the petitioner in case there is no other legal impediment under the various Statutes applicable and the Orders of the Supreme Court issued from time to time in Godavardhan case.

¶16

We make it clear that we have not at all interfered in the impugned orders.

¶17

The interim order is vacated.

¶18

No order is passed as to costs."

¶19

After the aforesaid order was passed an application was submitted by the petitioner before the competent authority for renewal of his mining lease. It is contended that inspite of the fact that a considerable time has already lapsed till date no decision has been taken by the competent authority hence the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

¶20

In response to the arguments made by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, it is argued by Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of respondents that in view of the new policy introduced by the State Government the mining lease could only be granted through e-auction.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Arti Dwivedi Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others reported in 2019 (3) ADJ 823 (DB) . In response to the same Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel relied upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2015 (5) ADJ 519 .

¶22

It is argued by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel that in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case the petitioner is entitled for renewal of his lease deed.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties the present writ petition is being disposed of finally.

¶25

From perusal of the facts as narrated above, it is clear that the claim set up by the petitioner for removal of his lease was rejected by the State Government vide its order dated 21.5.2004. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ C No.22770 of 2004. The said writ petition was finally decided on 2.5.2014 by which the liberty was given to the petitioner to make an application before the competent authority and the competent authority was directed to make necessary enquiry to find out the period when the petitioner was prevented from mining operations during the lease period and pass reasoned order within four weeks, thereafter. It appears from perusal of the record that after the aforesaid order was passed although representations were made by the petitioner but till date no final decision has been taken in the matter.

¶26

Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of finally permitting the

¶27

petitioner to submit a fresh representation ventillating all his grievances along-with certified copy of this order before the competent authority as indicated in the judgement and order dated 2.5.2014 within a period of three weeks from today. If such a representation is made, the competent authority is directed to look into the matter and pass appropriate orders on the same in accordance with law within a further period of three months thereafter.

¶28

Order Date :- 30.10.2019 Pramod Tripathi

M/S Salkhan Lime Works v. State of U.P. and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Salkhan Lime Works v. State of U.P. and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Kanahiya Lal and Sons Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chhakkan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Deshbandhu and Another Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Smt Baby Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

The Nagrik Sahkari Avas Samiti Limited Agra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohd. Irshad @ Guddu Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others