Disposed

M/S Maa Jayanti Infrastructure v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2020WRIC/40707/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition by a mining lease holder challenging royalty demand under amended Rules, the High Court directed the Collector, Banda, to consider the claim and pass an order within one month, disposing of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to Collector, Banda to consider petitioner's claim and pass an appropriate order within one month.

M/S Maa Jayanti Infrastructure Vs State of… — Mining and Natural Resources | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 37

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40707 of 2019 Petitioner :- M/S Maa Jayanti Infrastructure Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Bhushan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Sushant holding brief of Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.

¶5

Petitioner claims that he was granted mining lease of sand and mauram for a period of five years on 16.11.2018. The petitioner completed all the formalities and thereafter the lease deed was executed. The petitioner furnished royalty for the first year. However, for the second year a demand has been made by the petitioner and the petitioner objected the same on account of amendment under Section 23 (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 as per the Government order dated 30th August, 2019 which provides that after every mansoon season the authorities will re-evaluate quality and quantity of mineral in the leased area.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without such an evaluation the demand has been raised, which is improper.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel was required to seek instruction and on the basis of instructions he submits that the said amendment came into being on 13th August, 2019 whereas the lease of the petitioner is of the year 2018 and, therefore, this amendment would not be applicable to the lease holder whose lease were granted before the date of amendment. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner has already made a representation before the District Collector who is the Prescribed Authority under the Act.

¶8

We see no purpose to keep the writ petition pending and a

¶9

direction is issued to the Collector, Banda to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

¶10

With the aforesaid observation the writ petition is disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 2.1.2020 Manish Tripathi

¶12

(Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.) (Abhinava Upadhya,J. )

M/S Maa Jayanti Infrastructure v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Maa Jayanti Infrastructure v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Amrita Devi Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Shobhnath Chauhan and 12 Others Vs Government of India and 3 Others

Sunil Dutt and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Malkhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Basheer Khan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

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