M/S Anushka Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Ms. Manju Singh Fatehpur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Geology and Mining, Lko. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:24141

Court No. - 5

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1532 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S Anushka Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Ms. Manju Singh Fatehpur

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Geology And Mining, Lko. And 2 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Shishir Chandra

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶8

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3.

¶9

2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs(s):

¶10

"(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 30.11.2022 passed by respondent no. 1 in Mines Revision No. 23(R)/SM/2022 [Re: M/s Anushka Enterprises v/s District Magistrate, Shamli]; as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.

¶11

(ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order(s) dated 13.04.2022 & 19.04.2022 passed by Respondent No. 2; whereby the mining lease deed dated 02.01.2022 granted in favour of petitioner has been cancelled, an amount of Rs 36,32,968/- has been adjusted from Petitioner's security deposit of Rs 57,89,592/-, the remaining amount of security deposit of Rs 21,56,924/- has been forfeited and direction for recovery of an amount of Rs 26,05,313/towards DMF and Rs 5,36,694/- towards TCS as arrears of land revenue has been issued; besides; the petitioner has also been blacklisted for a period of 2 years; without giving any opportunity of hearing; which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice; as contained in Annexure Nos. 2 & 3 respectively to the writ petition.

¶12

(iii) issue a writ or order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the mining lease of the revisionist and to issue formeMM-11 and to exempt the liability of royalty and other dues for the period during which the mining work of the petitioner / revisionist remained disrupted due to passing of impugned orders dated 13.04.2022

¶13

& 19.04.2022."

¶14

3. The case forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been awarded a lease for mining rights over a certain area through the lease deed dated 02.01.2021 which was valid for a period of 5 years i.e. till 01.01.2026. The petitioner was issued a notice dated 04.04.2022, a copy of which is part of annexure 4 to the petition (page 53), whereby it was indicated that despite various notices having been issued to the petitioner, the petitioner has failed to give receipts of monthly installments for the period February 2021 to March 2022, has failed to deposit the installment of the month of January 2022 and also failed to deposit the DMF and TCS funds. The petitioner was required to pay the same within a period of three days or else action as provided under Rule 59(1) of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2021) would be taken against him. The petitioner claims to have submitted his reply dated 07.04.2022, a copy of which is part of annexure 4 to the petition (page 54), wherein he prayed for some time to deposit the amount. The said application for extension of time was rejected vide the order dated 08.04.2022, a copy of which is part of annexure 4 to the petition (page 55). The petitioner claims to have deposited the installment for the month of April 2022 on 13.04.2022. Disregarding the same the competent authority passed the order dated 13.04.2022, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition, whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted and the security deposit of the petitioner was also forfeited. The said order has been modified by another order dated 19.04.2022, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the petition, whereby the petitioner's lease has been cancelled.

¶15

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision under Rule 80 of the Rules 2021. The revisional authority passed an interim order dated 06.05.2022, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the

¶16

petition, whereby requiring the petitioner to deposit the installments as due against the petitioner within a period of seven days and the other dues by 30.06.2022. It was further provided that in case the petitioner deposits the said amounts then the orders impugned dated 13.04.2022 and 19.04.2022 would stand cancelled else the orders would continue. Admittedly the petitioner failed to deposit the said dues within the time specified in the interim order dated 06.05.2022. Subsequent thereto the revisional authority vide the order impugned dated 30.11.2022, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, has rejected the revision.

¶17

5. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that perusal of order of revisional authority dated 30.11.2022 would indicate that none of the grounds as were raised by the petitioner in his revision, including the grounds of the orders impugned being patently violative of Rule 59(1) of the Rules 2021 have been considered rather the revisional authority has only been swayed by the fact that as the petitioner failed to comply with the interim order dated 06.05.2022 which required him to deposit the amounts within a specified time, as such the revision has been dismissed.

¶18

6. The argument is that once various grounds had been raised in the revision filed by the petitioner, as would be apparent from a perusal of the copy of the revision which has been filed as annexure 4 to the petition, consequently the revisional authority was required to consider the said grounds and even if the said grounds did not find favour with the revisional authority it was always open to the revisional authority to have considered and rejected the said grounds but there cannot be any occasion for the revisional authority to simply not consider the said grounds and ignore them altogether and to have dismissed the revision of the petitioner solely on the ground of not having complied

¶19

with the interim order. Thus, it is contended that the order impugned merits to be set aside.

¶20

7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has supported the orders impugned on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit.

¶21

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record it emerges that the competent authority had cancelled the lease of the petitioner and had also blacklisted it vide order impugned 13.04.2022 as modified on 19.04.2022. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed a revision taking various grounds including the ground of the orders impugned being patently violative of Rule 59(1) of the Rules 2021. Various other grounds have also been taken as emerges from perusal of the revision more particularly in paragraphs 18, 19 and 26 and grounds (d) and (l) of the said revision. Initially the revisional authority, upon filing of the revision, had passed an interim order dated 06.05.2022 requiring the petitioner to deposit certain amounts within a specified time and it was provided that in case the said amounts are deposited the orders impugned i.e. 13.04.2022 and 19.04.2022 would stand revoked or else the said orders would stand. Admittedly the petitioner failed to deposit the amount within the time specified as per the interim order dated 06.05.2022. Thereafter the revisional authority heard the revision and by means of order impugned dated 30.11.2022 has rejected the revision.

¶22

9. Perusal of the order impugned dated 30.11.2022 would indicate that the revisional authority has only been swayed by the fact that the petitioner has failed to comply with the interim order dated 06.05.2022 in not depositing the amounts as indicated in the said order within the time specified. The entire order does not indicate the consideration of the grounds on

¶23

which the revision has been filed by the petitioner against the orders impugned dated 13.04.2022 and 19.04.2022 although the said grounds have specifically been taken in the revision.

¶24

10. Further, even if the said grounds did not find favour with the revisional authority nothing precluded the revisional authority in considering and rejecting the said grounds but there cannot be any case for total non consideration of the grounds which were raised by the petitioner in his revision.

¶25

11. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is partly allowed . The order impugned dated 30.11.2022, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, is quashed.

¶26

12. The revisional authority is directed to pass a fresh order considering the grounds as raised by the petitioner in his revision.

¶27

13. Let an order in this regard be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law after hearing all the parties concerned provided there is no legal impediment.

¶28

Order Date :- 19.3.2024 J.K. Dinkar

¶29

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Anushka Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Ms. Manju Singh Fatehpur v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Geology and Mining, Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Anushka Enterprises Thru. Proprietor Ms. Manju Singh Fatehpur v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Geology and Mining, Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghanshyam Pal Vs Ghanshyam and Ors.

Sadhan Lal and Ors. Vs Additional District Judge Unnao and Ors.

Smt. Vasundhara and 2 Ors. Vs the Additional District Judge Court NO.4 Lucknow and Others

Safida Begum and Others Vs District Judge Bahraich and Others

Krishna Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 5 Others

Pradumna Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 5 Others