Ranveer Singh [ P.I.L. ] vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 929 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 5507 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- Ranveer Singh [ P.I.L. ]
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Geology & Mining & 13 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Uttam Kumar Pathak
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.

Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.

Notices on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has been accepted by Chief Standing Counsel, Additional Advocate General, Smt. Bulbul Godiyal present on behalf of the State, Sri Manoj Kumar Dwevedi, Advocate is present on behalf of O.P.No. 5, by Sri Ayush Negi, Advocate on behalf of O.P.No. 6, Ms. Pushpila Bist on behalf of O.P.No. 11.

Issue notice to respondent Nos. 7 to 10 and 12 to 14 fixing 13.07.2015 as the date.

List this matter on 13.07.2015 or on the first day when Hon'ble the Chief Justice holds Court at Lucknow.

Such a direction is being issued by this Court, as in Writ Petition No. 35308 of 2015 (Durga Shanker Vs. Union of India ) vide order dated 19.06.2015, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has required that the matters relating to renewal/grant of lease of minor minerals need be settled finally by one Bench to be constituted for the purpose, so that the possibility of conflicting orders and conflicting directions may be avoided and legal position in that respect crystallizes.

This writ petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation seeks a direction upon the State Government to strictly comply with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in Deepak Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2012 (4) SCC 629, the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Nar Narayan Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2013 (2) ADJ 166 (DB) as also in the case of Gulab Chandra Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 1498 of 2015 ).

From the records of the present writ petition, specifically the chart which has been enclosed in the present writ petition as Annexure No. 15, we find that in respect of District Saharanpur lease deeds for excavation of minor minerals subsequent to grant of renewal of the earlier leases has been executed after the issuance of the Government Order dated 31st May, 2012. It is also alleged that the lease-holders are using heavy machines for the purpose of excavation of minor minerals from the river bed.

Two issues need to be examined by this Court :-

(a) Whether there could have been execution of the lease deed on the basis of an order of approval granted by the competent authority for renewal of the earlier lease on a date subsequent to 31st May, 2012 or not? and

(b) Whether there can be use of heavy machines by the lease-holders in execution of their lease-hold rights under the leases so granted.

So far as the first issue is concerned, we may record that a Division Bench of this Court in case of Nar Narayan Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2013 (2) ADJ 166 (DB), had held that with the issuance of the notification dated 31st May, 2012 under Rule 23 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, notifying the vacant areas as now available to be settled only under Chapter IV of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, all pending applications in the matter of grant of lease/renewal of lease under Chapter II stand rejected automatically. What logically followed is that subsequent to 31st May, 2012, even if there had been an order approving the renewal of the term of the earlier lease, but actual lease deed had not been executed then such execution can not be done, inasmuch as on 31st May, 2012, the area covered by such expired leases was admittedly vacant within the mining of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 as nobody had lease-rights over the area on the relevant date i.e. 31st May, 2012.

The State Government however came out with another Government Order dated 26th February, 2013 which provided that if orders of approval have been made by the competent authority prior to 5th September, 2012 then such renewal orders would be valid not standing the judgment in the case of Nar Narayan Mishra (Supra).

The correctness of the said Government Order was examined by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sukhan Singh Vs. State of U.P. And others (Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 31643 of 2014), the Division Bench held as follows:-

"Finally, and for the sake of completeness, we would also refer to a Government Order dated 26 February 2013 which refers to the decision of this Court in Nar Narain Mishra (supra) and clarifies that all applications for the grant of mining leases or for renewals which were pending as on 31 May 2012 should be treated as rejected since the provisions of Chapter IV of the Rules came into force. The attention of the Court has been drawn to another Government Order dated 26 February 2013 which states that those applications in respect of which approval has been granted by the competent authority prior to 5 September 2012 would for the purposes of renewal be treated as valid. In our view, the subsequent clarification of the State Government on 26 February 2013 does not and cannot detract from the plain legal position as it emerges once a notification has been issued under Rule 23 of the Rules making the provisions of Chapter IV of the Rules applicable. Once a declaration has been issued in terms of Rule 23(1) of the Rules, the provisions of Chapter IV of the Rules must necessarily apply both to fresh applications for the grant of a mining lease as well as to applications for renewal, including all applications which were pending on the date of issuance of the Government Order.

The basic position in law is that the mere filing of an application either for the grant of a lease or for the renewal of a lease does not confer a vested right for the grant or renewal of a lease and, an application has to be disposed of on the basis of the rules as they stand on the date of the disposal of the application.

This being the clear position in law which has been enunciated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu (supra), it would be impermissible to accept the contention of the fourth respondent that its applications were liable to be disposed of, not on the basis of the provisions of Chapter IV but under Chapter II of the Rules. Besides, the acceptance of any such submission would be contrary to the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Nar Narain Mishra (supra) which follows the decision of the Supreme Court."

From the law so declared by the Division Benches of this Court, it cannot be disputed that mere filing of an application for grant of lease/ for renewal of a lease will not confer any vested right for grant or renewal of the lease and that an application has to be disposed of on the basis of the rules as it stands on the date of disposal of the application.

We may clarify that execution of the lease is a condition precedent for right of excavation to be enforced mere approval for such grant is not sufficient. Admittedly in the facts of the case the execution of the lease has been affected subsequent to 31st May, 2012 under Chapter II of Rules 1963 on the basis of an order of renewal said to have been passed earlier. The notification issued under Rule 23 of Rules 1963 dated 31st May, 2012 specifically provided that all vacant areas are now available for settlement under Chapter IV only.

From the document annexed as Annexure No. 15 to the writ petition, we find that in all the cases the environmental clearance has been obtained in the month of October, 2012 except in the case of Mohd. Inam and Mohd. Ali.

In our opinion unless there was a duly executed lease deed substisting for the area on 31.05.2012 it shall be treated as vacant therefore on issuance of the Notification dated 31st May, 2012 such area could be settled only by way of tender/E-tender under chapter IV of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. This is what has been has clarified by the subsequent Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sukhan Singh (supra) while dealing with the Government Order dated 26th February, 2013 quoted above.

The larger question of public interest that arise is as to whether the State should have acted upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Nar Narayan Mishra (supra) and Sukhan Singh (Supra) or should it permit the illegality to continue even after the said judgments thereby creating a situation where the judgment and orders of the High Court do not even carry the weight on which they are transcribed. Inaction on the part of the State authorities to implement the judgments of this Court reflects upon the rule of law in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

So far as the use of the machines in excavation of minor minerals is concerned suffice it to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Kumar (Supra) wherein it has been clarified that right for excavation of minor minerals can only be settled by the State provided a mining plan, in accordance with model, rules framed by Ministry of Forest and Environment in 2010 has been duly approved by the competent authority. The Apex Court has clarified that while approving such mining plan it has to be seen as to what impact the machines, if any, permitted to be used would have on the environment and what is the current situation in respect of the area concerned.

We only record that if the mining plain approved by the competent authority in respect of the leases settled in favour of a lease holder contain a rider that the mining would be done manually by open pit method then it is the responsibility of the State and its officers to ensure that no machines in any circumstances are used for excavation of minor minerals under such approved mining plan.

We, therefore, in the facts of the case provide as follows:-

(a) The Chief Secretary of the State shall file his personal affidavit before this Court by the next date of listing explaining as to whether the State shall carry out the judgments and order of this Court referred to above in the case of Nar Narayan Mishra (supra) and Sukhan Singh (supra) in letter and spirit or not?

(b) Will the State ensure that in case where mining plans duly approved by the competent authority provide for excavation through open pit method manually only, will the State ensure that no machines are permitted to be used for excavation of minor minerals in respect of the said areas covered by the mining plan so approved or not?

(c) The Chief Secretary of the State shall obtain a report from the District Magistrate, Saharanpur with photographs of the mining areas which are subject matter of this PIL in respect of use of the machines in the areas. The Photographs along with the report of the District Magistrate shall be enclosed along with the affidavit of the Chief Secretary.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we further provide that till the next date of listing, no further excavation of minor minerals shall be carried out by the respondents to the present petition.

(Anil Kumar,J.) (Arun Tandon,J.)

Order Date :- 25.6.2015

Ravi/