Allowed¶21

M/S Jayesh Construction v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC5 May 2026WRIC/14025/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, WRIT - C No. 14025 of 2026, decided May 5, 2026 (Arindam Sinha and Satya Veer Singh, JJ.): termination of mining lease under the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 without a rule 59 notice held invalid; rule 58 penalty dues are not 'any amount due or dead rent under the lease'; orders of the District Magistrate and Special Secretary quashed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed and disposed of; impugned order dated 26th May, 2025 of the District Magistrate terminating the mining lease and order dated 27th February, 2026 of the Special Secretary confirming the cancellation set aside and quashed, without preventing the State from proceeding in accordance with law. ¶21

M/S Jayesh Construction vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 26th May, 2025 of the District Magistrate terminating the mining lease, and the order dated 27th February, 2026 of the Special Secretary confirming the cancellation, are liable to be set aside for want of notice under rule 59 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

Rule 59 requires that, to terminate a mining lease, a notice must be issued allowing the lessee thirty days to pay any amount due or dead rent under the lease, including royalty; only upon default after such notice does the rule empower termination.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

None of the four notices invoked rule 59; they invoked rule 42(h)(1) and rule 58, and recovery for breach of rule 58 is in the nature of penalty, which cannot be equated with any amount due or dead rent under the lease, including royalty.

¶19

Key takeaways

Rule 59(1) is confined to amounts due under the lease; the lease was not shown to provide for compensation or penalty for breach of the rules, so penalty-type dues under rules 42(h)(1) and 58 fall outside rule 59.ratio¶19
The termination of the mining lease and the Special Secretary's order confirming the cancellation were made de hors the applicable rule; the impugned orders are set aside and quashed.ratio¶20
The quashing does not prevent the State from proceeding against the lessee in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mining lease — termination by District Magistrate on allegations of illegal mining and user of prohibited machinery, confirmed by Special Secretary — four preceding notices invoked rule 42(h)(1) and rule 58 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021, none invoked rule 59 — termination under rule 59 requires a notice giving the lessee thirty days to pay 'any amount due or dead rent under the lease', including royalty — recovery for breach of rule 58 is penalty and cannot be equated with dues under the lease — termination and confirming order made de hors the applicable rule — impugned orders set aside and quashed, State free to proceed in accordance with law — writ petition allowed and disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 14025 of 2026

¶3

M/S Jayesh Construction

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus State Of U.P. And 7 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajeev Kumar Singh, Udayan Nandan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶6

Court No. - 29

¶7

HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.

¶8

Mr. Udayan Nandan, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, under challenge is order dated 26th May, 2025 passed by respondent no. 3 (the District Magistrate) terminating the mining lease. Also under challenge is order dated 27th February, 2026 passed by respondent no. 2 (the Special Secretary) confirming the cancellation. He submits, no notice for terminating the lease, as required under rule 59 in Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 was given to his client. On allegations of illegal mining and user of prohibited machinery, the cancellation was made. He submits, both impugned orders are liable to be set aside and quashed.

¶9

Mr. Kartikeya Saran, learned advocate Additional Advocate General appears on behalf of State. He submits, three of the four preceding notices together fulfill the requirement under rule 59. He submits further, scope of rules 58 and 59 are completely different. While rule 58 provides for penalty, rule 59 is consequence of termination on non recovery of royalty. He submits, the writ petition be dismissed.

¶10

There cannot be dispute that two of the four notices invoked rule 42 (h)

¶11

(1) and other two, rule 58. As such rule 59 is reproduced below.

¶12

"59. Consequences of non-payment of royalty rent or other dues (1) The State Government or any officer authorised by it in this behalf may terminate the mining lease after serving a notice on the lessee to pay within thirty days of the receipt of the notice any amount due or dead rent under the lease including the royalty due to the State Government if it was not paid within fifteen days next after the date fixed for such

¶13

WRIC No. 14025 of 2026

¶14

¶15

payment. This right shall be in addition to and without prejudice to the right of the State Government to realise such dues from the lessee as arrears of land revenue.

¶16

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of these rules, simple interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum may be charged on any rent, royalty, demarcation fee and any other dues under these rules, due to the State Government after the expiry of the period of notice under sub-rule (1):

¶17

Provided that the District Magistrate, after adjusting the security money against the total amount due, shall issue recovery certificate for recovery of the outstanding amount."

¶18

(emphasis supplied)

¶19

Above rule requires that for purpose of terminating the lease there must be notice issued allowing thirty days to the lessee to pay any amount due or dead rent under the lease, including royalty. Upon issuance of the notice and expiry of the period, on default the rule empowers termination of lease. In this case, none of the notices invoked rule 59. They invoked, as aforesaid, rule 42 (h) (1) and rule 58. Recovery for breach of rule 58 is in nature of penalty. Breach of said rules cannot be equated with any amount due or dead rent under the lease, including royalty. Aforesaid rule 42 (h) (1) prohibits use of specified machinery. The lease has not been shown to provide for compensation or penalty for breach of the rules. Rule 59 (1) providing for 'any amount due or dead rent under the lease' makes the amount due under the lease.

¶20

It thus becomes clear that the termination and the order of the Secretary confirming it were made de-hors the applicable rule. In the circumstances, impugned orders are set aside and quashed. Needless to mention, the interference will not prevent State from proceeding in accordance with law.

¶21

The writ petition is thus allowed and disposed of.

¶22

May 5, 2026 Vikram

¶23

(Arindam Sinha,J.)

¶24

(Satya Veer Singh,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Jayesh Construction v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jayesh Construction v. State of U.P. and 7 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

Matsajivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and 2 Other Vs State of U.P. and 8 Other

Umesh Kumar vs State Public Service Tribunal and 3 Others

Shubham Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anees Fatma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sneha Verma vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Aakriti Turaiha (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others