Allahabad High Court
Surendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. & 2 Others on 26 March, 2014
Bench: Vineet Saran, Attau Rahman Masoodi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17230 of 2014
Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dev Brat Mukherjee
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vishnu Pratap
Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J.
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
The petitioner was granted mining lease for certain areas for the period 24.10.2009 to 23.10.2012. However, because of the decision of the Lucknow Bench of this Court in the case of Mohd. Kausar Jah vs. Union of India and others, passed in Writ Petition No. 9416 (M/B) of 2010, mining operations of the entire State had been directed to be stopped with effect from 1.7.2011 in cases where the environmental clearance was not obtained by the mine owners or lease holders by 30.6.2011. The petitioner applied for such environment clearance certificate before the appropriate authority immediately after the judgment in the aforesaid case and finally got the environment clearance certificate on 4.3.2013. However, by the said date, the period of lease of the petitioner had already expired.
On 4.3.2013 the State of U.P. issued a Government Order to the effect that in all cases where mining operations had been stopped because of non-availability of the environmental clearance certificate of the lease holders and had thereafter got such certificate by 1.3.2013, then their period of lease may be extended for obstructed period during which they could not operate because of non-availability of environmental clearance certificate and in no case the total period of mining operations should be more than three years.
Even though such Government Order had been issued yet the petitioner was not given the benefit as the said Government order on the ground that the environmental clearance certificate should have been obtained by 1.3.2013, whereas in the case of the petitioner the certificate was issued on 4.3.2013. The petitioner then applied to the respondent authorities for being given the benefit of extension of the lease period, which remained pending with the State Government and finally on 30.12.2013 the State Government has issued directions to the District Magistrate requiring the District Magistrate to extend the period of mining operation of the petitioner by 480 days as he could not operate the mines for such number of days because of the environmental clearance certificate having not been issued in favour of the petitioner.
It is contended that despite such direction of the State Government, the benefit of extension has not been given to the petitioner. He has thus filed this petition for a direction to the District Magistrate/Collector, Allahabad to pass appropriate/consequential orders in compliance of the order of the State Government dated 30.12.2013 and to permit the petitioner to carry on mining operation over mining plot situated at Khand No. 22 of Yamuna River Zone No. 3, measuring Area 30.00 Acre.
We have heard Sri Dev Brat Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Vishnu Pratap, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. Sri Vishnu Pratap, learned Standing Counsel has stated that he has received written instructions from the office of the District Magistrate, Allahabad dated 24.3.2013, a copy of which has been passed on to us and has been taken on record. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that this writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.
On having received instructions, Sri Vishnu Pratap, learned Standing Counsel has stated that though the directions have been received from the State Government for extending the period of mining lease of the petitioner vide communication dated 30.12.2013 but since the model code of conduct issued by the Election Commission of India is in force, orders for grant of extension have not been passed.
It is surprising that the orders/instructions were issued by the State Government in December, 2013 and model code of conduct was enforced by the Election Commission only in March, 2014, yet during this period the respondent no. 2 had not complied with the directions of the State Government. We are unable to understand as to how the enforcement of the model code of conduct will come in the way of day-to-day conduct of business by the administrative authorities, inasmuch as, granting extension of lease period in compliance of the order of the State Government issued in December, 2013 cannot, in our opinion, violate the model code of conduct. Learned Standing Counsel has also not been able to justify the inaction on the part of the respondents merely because of the model code of conduct having come into force, especially when the order for grant of extension was passed by the State Government more than two months prior to the enforcement of the model code of conduct.
As such, in view of the directions already issued by the State Government on 30.12.2013 and keeping in view the instructions received by the learned Standing Counsel, we are of the opinion that this writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The respondent no. 2-District Magistrate/Collector, Allahabad is directed to comply with the directions of the State Government dated 30.12.2013 issued in the case of the petitioner for extension of the lease period and permit the petitioner to carry on mining operations in terms of the orders of the State Government dated 30.12.2013 and ensure compliance of the same, as expeditiously as possible but not later than two weeks from the date of filing of a a certified copy of this order before the respondent no. 2.
This writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.3.2014
aBhisheK
(Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.) (Vineet Saran, J.)
