Disposed

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

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2019WRIC/31776/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding a mining lease dispute involving a discrepancy in excavated mineral quantum, the High Court did not decide merits but disposed of the matter by directing the respondent to treat the notice as a show cause notice and allowing the petitioner to reply.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent No.4 to treat the impugned notice as a show cause notice and direct the petitioner to submit his reply within three weeks. Respondent must decide within four weeks of the r

M/S. Kanahiya Lal and Sons Vs State of U.P… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31776 of 2019

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S. Kanahiya Lal And Sons Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

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

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

¶8

“(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the notice dated 24.8.2019 issued by the District Magistrate, Jalaun (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).

¶9

(b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to adjust the amount of royalty on the quantity of minerals excavated by the petitioner and to refund the balance amount deposited by the petitioner with interest.

¶10

(c) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶11

(d) award cost of the petition to the petitioner.”

¶12

Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that pursuant to the Government Order dated 14.8.2017, a notice was published by the District Officer Jalaun by which the applications were invited for the grant of mining lease as provided under Chapter IV of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules 1963”). The petitioner applied for mining area Gata Nos. 1782 and 1783 Khand No.3 measuring 8.906 hectares situate in village Muhana Tehsil Orai, District Jalaun. Since the bid of the petitioner was highest, the same was accepted by the respondent No.3 and a letter of intent was issued to the petitioner in this regard on 14.3.2018. After issuance of letter of intent, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.94,40,360/- as first instalment. Subsequently, the petitioner got a mining plan prepared as provided under the Rules, 1963 and submitted the same for its approval before the

¶13

¶14

Director General, Mining U.P. which was duly approved by him on 29.3.2018. Environmental Clearance Certificate was also issued in favour of the petitioner on 7.5.2018. Subsequently, a lease deed was also executed in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner started mining operation.

¶15

It is contended that when the petitioner logged in for obtaining E- form MM 11, he is utter surprised the detail quantum mentioned in EC which was being reflected as 8906 cubic meters instead of 89060 cubic meters. In this regard, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Mines Officer, Jalaun on 13.6.2018. It is contended that subsequently the petitioner also deposited second and third installments of the royalty. It is contended that for the correction of the mistake reflected in EC, the petitioner submitted representation and thereafter a meeting of the Environment Impact Assessment Authority U.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the SEIAA”) held on 4.3.2019 in which a decision was taken that no correction is required in the matter.

¶16

Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the petitioner made a representation addressed to the District Magistrate/respondent No.3 on 8.4.2019 stating therein that due to mistake in the lease deed, the quantum as reflected 8906 cubic meter in place of 89060 cubic meters. It is further argued that the petitioner has only excavated the minerals as mentioned in the certificate issued by the respondents as 8906 cubic meters but wholly illegally notices were issued to the petitioner on 6.7.2019 and thereafter on 24.8.2019 directing the petitioner to deposit the remaining balance amount of installment along with interest within a week from the date of notices. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 24.8.2019 issued by the Mines Officer, Jalaun at Orai namely respondent No.4 on the ground that although the representations were made by the petitioner from time to time in order to rectify the mistake as stated above but no decision has been taken on the same and without considering the objections raised by the petitioner, a demand notice was issued against the petitioner.

¶17

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.

¶19

From perusal of the record, it is clear that raising his grievances, the petitioner submitted representations before the District Authorities from time to time but without considering the objections raised by the petitioner as stated above, demand notice was issued by the respondent No.4.

¶20

In view of the above, learned counsel appearing for the State on instructions submitted that the impugned notice to be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner be directed to submit his reply within a time bound period.

¶21

In response to the same, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall submit his reply against the impugned notice dated 24.8.2019 within a period of three weeks from today.

¶22

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, we dispose of this petitioner with the direction to the petitioner to submit his reply to the respondent No.4 within three weeks from today, if such a reply is filed within stipulated time, the respondent No.4/Mines Officer Jalaun shall consider and decide the same treating it as show cause notice within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of such reply before him.

¶23

Till then, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner. It is clear that if the petitioner fails to submit his reply within stipulated time, it would be open for the respondent No.4 to recover the amount/penalty from the petitioner.

¶24

Order Date :- 24.10.2019 saqlain

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S National Stone Crusher and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Shakuntala Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Chandra and 10 Others 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

Amina Begum Vs Union of India and 2 Others