Udaypal Singh vs State Of U.P. & 21 Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 3303 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Reserved
 
Court No. - 39
 

 
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 19958 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- Udaypal Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 21 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Malhotra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Ravi Kant, C.S.C.,Mukesh Prasad,Ravindra Singh, Vikas Budhwar
 

 
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.

Hon'ble Vinod Kumar Misra,J.

This petition has been filed in the public interest for quashing the orders granting/renewing the mining leases in favour of private respondent Nos.4 to 22 and the consequential execution of deeds in their favour.

The petitioner asserts that he is a resident of district Banda and has agricultural land holdings situated on the banks of river Ken in district Hamirpur. According to the petitioner, on one side of river Ken is district Hamirpur and on the other side of the river is district Banda. The petitioner claims to be espousing the cause of the general public residing near the banks of the river for bringing to an end the illegal mining that is being carried out by grant/renewal of mining leases in contravention of the statutory provisions. The petitioner has also stated that he has no personal or private interest in the issues that have been raised in this petition and that the result of the litigation will not lead to any undue gain to the petitioner or to anyone associated with him nor would it cause any undue loss to any person, body or persons or State.

The petitioner has placed reliance upon a Government Order dated 31 May 2012 that declares that mining leases and renewals should only be granted under the provisions of Chapter IV of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 19631 by following an e-tendering process. On behalf of the petitioner, the principal submission is that all the leases which have been executed in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 22 are contrary to law because once a Government Order was issued on 31 May 2012 making a declaration in terms of Chapter IV of the Rules, the grant of a fresh lease as well as the renewal of an existing lease could not have been made under Chapter II of the Rules and could have been made by only following the procedure prescribed in Chapter IV of the Rules. In the present case, it has been submitted that in all the cases, both the date of the grant/renewal and the date of the execution of the deed is after 31 May 2012 and hence, the leases have been executed ex facie in a manner contrary to law and would, therefore, be invalid.

Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel, Sri Mukesh Prasad and Sri Vikas Budhwar appearing for some of the private respondents and the learned Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that this petition has not been filed in the public interest but has been filed at the instance of some unsuccessful applicants who were not granted mining leases. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner has no locus to file this petition. Certain paragraphs of the counter affidavit were also referred to by learned counsel to demonstrate that many criminal cases are pending against the petitioner and by not disclosing them, the petitioner has concealed material facts from the Court. In support of their contention, reliance was placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,2; Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,3; Honkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited Vs. Canbank Financial Services Limited & Anr.,4 and Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha Vs. Dhobei Sahoo & Ors.,5.

On merits, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the leases/renewals were granted in favour of private respondent Nos.4 to 22 prior to 31 May 2012 on which date the Government Order was issued and, therefore, it cannot be said that the leases/renewals had been granted illegally. Elaborating this connection it was pointed out by the learned counsel that the State Government had granted prior approval before 31 May 2012 and only environmental clearance was required which was subsequently given. To support this contention, learned counsel placed charts which have been annexed to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. Learned counsel also submitted that there is a difference between the grant of a lease and the execution of a lease deed and contended that mere execution of the lease deeds after 31 May 2012 would not render the grant or renewal of the leases bad in law. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in M/s. Gujarat Pottery Works Private Ltd., Vs. B.P. Sood & Ors.,6 and Doiwala Sehkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors.,7.

Sri Mukesh Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.12, 13 and 14 also submitted that in terms of the Government Order dated 1 November 2011, it is the Collector who has to grant the lease.

We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

An objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondents about the locus of the petitioner and the maintainability of the public interest litigation at his behest. It is sought to be urged that the petitioner is a rival trader who has not come to the Court with clean hands and is involved in a number of criminal cases. According to the respondents, the petitioner is not 'a person aggrieved' and in fact is an unscrupulous person who is intending to abuse the process of the Court. For this connection, reliance has been placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware, Ayaaubkhan Norrkhan Pathan, Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. and Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that the petitioner is seeking to espouse the cause of the general public residing near the banks of the river regarding illegal mining that is being carried out by grant of mining leases/renewal of mining leases in contravention of the statutory provisions which is not only damaging the agricultural fields of the local inhabitants but is also causing loss to the public exchequer by such grant of leases which is detrimental to the State. It has categorically been stated in the petition that it has neither been filed in personal nor private interest and important issues concerning public have been raised.

The Supreme Court in Institute of Law, Chandigarh & Ors. Vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors.7 examined the maintainability of a public interest litigation in regard to the allotment of public property. The Supreme Court also examined the locus standi of the writ petitioner who belonged to the same State in which the public property was allegedly given away at a throwaway price without public notice. It is in this connection that the Supreme Court observed :

"16. We will first consider and answer the question of maintainability of the writ petition and locus standi of the writ petitioner, Respondent No. 1 herein who has filed the writ petition.

17. The property in question belongs to the Union Territory of Chandigarh Administration. Under our constitutional philosophy, it is a public property and therefore, belongs to the people. Hence, the Union Territory of Chandigarh Administration is the trustee of the land whose duty is to see that the property is allotted in favour of eligible persons by following the procedure laid down by the Chandigarh Administration, and the same should not be allowed to be squandered or sold away by it at a throwaway price as it has been done in the instant case as pointed out by its Audit Department itself that there is a clear loss of about Rs. 139 crores to the public exchequer.

18. It has also come to our notice that the settlement of the land in question in favour of the appellant-Institute was done within a few days without following the mandatory procedure for the allotment of land. We do not doubt the intention of the appellants to set up the law institute, however, their private interest is pitted against the public interest. The loss to the public exchequer could have been easily avoided had the land in question been settled by way of public auction inviting applications from eligible persons.

19. Further, as stated in the writ petition, the petitioner is a resident of State of Punjab and is also an Income Tax Payee. It has neither been shown nor proved by the appellants that he is a (i) meddlesome interloper (ii) that he is acting under malafide intention or (iii) that he has been set up by someone for settling his personal scores with Chandigarh Administration or the allottee."

Having regard to the aforesaid factual position and to the earlier decisions rendered in Fertilizer Corporation Kamkar Union (Regd.) Sindri & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.8, S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India9 and Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware, the Supreme Court observed:-

"23. It is clear to us that Respondent No. 1, the writ petitioner, has filed a bonafide writ petition and he has the necessary locus. There is an apparent favour shown by the Union Territory of Chandigarh in favour of the appellant-Institute which is a profit making company and it has not been shown to this Court that the allotment of land in its favour is in accordance with law. Hence, we are of the view that there is a strong reason to hold that the writ petition is maintainable in public interest. We completely agree with the views taken by the High Court, wherein it has rightly held that the writ petition is a public interest litigation and not a private interest litigation. The writ petition in question is the first petition filed by the first Respondent and his first endeavor to knock the doors of the constitutional court to protect the public interest by issuing a writ of certiorari."

(emphasis supplied)

The Supreme Court after noticing that settlement of land in favour of the Institute had been done without following the mandatory procedure and that the petitioner was a resident of the State in which the property was situated, held that the petition was maintainable in the public interest.

In the present case, though a bald averment has been made that the petition had been filed at the behest of some unsuccessful applicants but nothing has been brought on record to substantiate this allegation. This apart, mere pendency of some criminal cases against the petitioner would not mean that the petitioner cannot maintain a Public Interest Litigation. The respondents have not been able to establish that the petitioner is an interloper who is acting under some malafide intention nor are they justified in asserting that even in a public interest litigation the petitioner must establish that he is 'a person aggrieved'. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware, Ayaaubkhan Norrkhan Pathan, Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. and Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha would, therefore, not help the respondents.

In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner does not have a locus to maintain this public interest litigation or that this petition has not been filed in the public interest.

In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties in regard to the grant/renewal of leases, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 195710 and the Rules framed thereunder. Section 4 of the Act inter alia provides that no person can undertake mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a mining lease granted under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Section 15 of the Act confers a rule making power on the State Government for, inter alia, regulating the grant of mining leases in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith. The State Government made the Rules. Rule 3 of the Rules provides that no person shall undertake any mining operations in any area within the State, of any minor mineral to which the Rules are applicable, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a mining lease or mining permit granted under the Rules. Chapter II of the Rules deals with the grant of mining leases. Chapter IV of the Rules deals with auction of leases.

Rules 4, 5, 7 and 8 contained in Chapter II of the Rules are reproduced below:-

"4. Restriction on the grant of mining lease:- No mining lease shall be granted to any person who is not an Indian national.

(a) in the case of a public company as defined in the Companies Act, 1956, only if a majority of the directors of the company are citizens of India and not less than fifty-one percent of the share capital thereof is held by persons who are either citizens of India, or Companies as defined in the Companies Act, 1956.

(b) in the case of a private company as defined in the companies Act, 1956 only if all the members of the company are citizens of India;

(c) in the case of firm or other association of individuals, only if all the partners of the firm or members of the association are citizens of India and

(d) in the case of an individual, only if he is a citizen of India.

5. Application for grant or renewal of mining lease-

(1) An application in form MM-I for grant of a mining lease or in Form MM-I (a) for renewal shall be addressed to the State Government.

(2) The application referred to in sub-rule(1) shall be submitted in quadruplicate to the District Officer or to the officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government. Such officer shall endorse the receipt of the application on all the four copies entering the place, time and date of receipt. One copy shall be returned immediately to the person presenting the application.

(3) The application referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be entered in a register of mining lease application in form MM-2.

7. Enquiry and reports- The District officer shall, unless he is authorised to grant or renew the mining lease cause an enquiry to be made into all relevant matters and, within two months from the date of receipt of application of mining lease, forward two copies of the application alongwith his report to the State Government or to such other authority as the State Government may authorise in this behalf.

8. Disposal of Application- (1) The State Government or the authority authorised by it in this behalf may, subject to the provisions of these rules and after making such further enquiry as it may consider necessary-

(a) in case of application for grant of a mining lease, refuse or grant the mining lease for the whole or part of the area applied for and for such period as it may consider proper;

(b) in case of application for renewal of a mining lease, refuse or renew the mining lease for the whole or part of the area applied for and for such period, not exceeding the period of the original lease, as it may consider proper:

Provided that where an application for grant or renewal of a mining lease is refused or the area is reduced, reasons therefore shall be recorded and communicated to the applicant."

Rule 23 which is contained in Chapter IV also needs to be reproduced and is as follows:-

"Declaration of area for auction/e-tender/auction-cum-tender of e-auction lease. (1) The State Government may by general or special order declare the area or areas which may be leased out by auction or by e-tender or by auction-cum-tender or e-auction.

(2) Subject to direction issued by the State Government from time to time in this behalf no area or areas shall be leased out by auction or by e-tender or by auction-cum-tender of e-auction for more than five years at a time.

(3) On the declaration of the area or areas under sub-rule (1) the provisions of chapters II, III and VI except rules 10 and 12 shall not apply to the area or areas in respect of which the declaration has been issued. Such area or areas may be leased out according to the procedure described in this Chapter.

(4) The District Officer shall get the area or areas declared under sub-rule (1), evaluated for quality and quantity of mineral for fixing minimum bid or offer by the Director, Geology and Mining, Uttar Pradesh or by an officer authorised by him before the date fixed for auction or e-tender or auction-cum-tender, or e-auction as the case may be."

In terms of Rule 23, the State Government issued a declaration by a Government Order dated 31 May 2012. By and as a result of the decision of the Government, the provisions of Chapter IV of the Rules were made applicable to all areas in the State falling vacant and to incorporate the procedure of e-tendering with a view to provide transparency in the allotment of mining leases.

The validity of this Government Order dated 31 May 2012 was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court in Nar Narain Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.11. By a judgment delivered on 29 January 2013, the Division Bench upheld the validity of the Government Order and held that both in respect of the grant of fresh mining leases as well as applications for renewal, the declaration made by the Government Order dated 31 May 2012 would apply. The Division Bench held that applicants whose applications for renewal were pending on 31 May 2012 could not claim that their applications should be considered under Chapter II of the Rules and that those areas have to be kept out of the purview of Government Order dated 31 May 2012. Similarly, the Division Bench also clarified that applications for the grant of fresh leases, which were pending on 31 May 2012, could not be directed to be considered under Chapter II of the Rules and that once a notification had been issued by the State issuing a declaration in terms of the applicability of Chapter IV of the Rules, the grant of all mining leases thereafter would have to be governed by the process of e-tendering laid down therein.

Among the issues which were framed for decision by the Division Bench, the first three issues are as follows:-

"(1) Whether the Government Order dated 31/5/2012, is only a policy decision of the State Government or can be treated to be a declaration within the meaning of Rule 23 sub-rule (1) of the Rules, 1963.

(2) Whether the application filed by the applicants for renewal of mining leases under Chapter II of the Rules, 1963 pending on 31.5.2012 are required to be considered and decided in accordance with Chapter II of the Rules, 1963, even if the Government Order dated 31/5/2012, is treated to be a declaration under Rule 23 sub-rule 1of the Rules, 1963.

(3) Whether the area with regard to which an application for renewal of mining lease or an application for grant of lease under Chapter II of the Rules, 1963 is pending can be treated to be vacant area within the meaning of Government Order dated 31/5/2012."

These issues were answered by the Division Bench by holding as follows:-

"The State stand is that there is no inviolable right of renewal in a lease and the right of consideration of the renewal and the claim of renewal of the lease have to be dealt with in accordance with the Rules as existing at the relevant time. It is submitted that declaration under Chapter IV having been issued all areas stand notified for settlement under Chapter IV, the renewal of lease cannot be granted since renewal can be granted only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Chapter II which provision is no more applicable. When the State issued the Government Order on 31.5.2012 applying the same to all vacant areas, it intended to apply the Government Order on the areas which were not occupied. No exception has been provided in the Government order to exclude out those areas in respect of which renewal applications are pending. An application for renewal of lease is in essence an application for grant of lease and same principle has to be applied with regard to applications which are pending for grant of lease and on similar analogy, if the submissions of the petitioners are to be accepted those areas on which applications for grant of lease have been submitted should also be kept out of purview of the Government Order dated 31.5.2012. No such intention or object is decipherable from the Government order. By subsequent Government Order dated 5.9.2012, the State Government has provided that those areas where renewal has been sanctioned or granted on or before 5.9.2012, shall not be settled under Chapter IV. The cases where renewal has been granted are on different footing."

The Division Bench followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. M/s Hind Stone and others12 and held as follows:-

"In view of the above pronouncement of the Apex Court, it is clear that the applicants whose application for renewal is pending cannot claim that their application for renewal be considered under Chapter II and those areas be kept out of purview of the Government order dated 31.5.2012. The areas having been declared under Rule 23(1), the provisions of Chapter II under which renewal of lease can be granted becomes inapplicable. The new state of affairs which have been brought into existence by declaration under Rule 23(1) has to be given its full effect and no rider or exception can be read specially when the Government Order dated 31.5.2012 does not contemplate any such exception. Thus, the submission of the applicants that their renewal applications which were pending at the time of issuance of declaration on 31.5.2012 shall be considered according to Chapter II cannot be accepted and the areas in respect of which the applications for renewal were pending on 31.5.2012, cannot be said to be not vacant."

Consequently, the view of the Division Bench was that no mandamus could be granted, directing the consideration of those applications for renewal of leases which were pending on 31 May 2012 under Chapter II of the Rules, once a declaration has been issued under Rule 23 of the Rules, making the provisions of Chapter IV of the Rules applicable. Similarly, on and after 31 May 2012, it was held, applications for the grant of fresh leases, even though they were pending, would not be governed by Chapter-II of the Rules as claimed by the petitioner.

This issue was also examined by a Division Bench of this Court in Sukhan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.,13. The Collector had made a recommendation to the State Government for grant of mining lease on 24 October 2008 since, at the material time, the applicable Government Order required prior permission of the State Government where the value of the mining was in excess of Rs.5 lacs. On 1 November 2011, a Government Order was issued by which the District Collectors were permitted to dispose of such applications at their level. In the meantime, as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar & Ar. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.14 requiring environmental clearance no final decision could be arrived at. It was sought to be urged by the petitioner that since the District Magistrate had already made his recommendation in 2008 to the State Government, only a formal order remained to be issued, particularly after the Government Order dated 1 November 2011 requiring the District Collectors to take a decision at their own level. Hence, it was submitted that as the decision making process for grant of mining lease had already been completed in 2008 when the District Magistrate had applied his mind, the issuance of a formal order granting permission was a ministerial act which had not been completed earlier in the absence of environmental clearance, and so the grant/renewal of lease was to be effected in terms of Chapter II and not on the basis of the declaration made on 31 May 2013. This contention of the petitioner was not accepted by the Division Bench in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Hind Stone and the earlier Division Bench judgment in Nar Narain Mishra.

The position of law summarized by the Division Bench in Sukhan Singh is as follows:-

"In view of this decision, the position in law is well settled. No person has a vested right to the grant or renewal of a mining lease or to have an application considered or disposed of in a particular manner. An application for the grant of a lease has to be dealt with in accordance with the prevailing rules on the date of disposal of the application. Mere pendency of an application on 31 May 2012, either for the grant of a fresh lease or for the renewal of an existing lease, did not confer a vested right either to the grant of or, for that matter, the renewal of the lease. Once the State Government issued a declaration under Rule 23 of the Rules by its notification dated 31 May 2012, the procedure for the grant of mining leases, both fresh as well as renewals, has to necessarily abide by Chapter IV of the Rules. There is no merit in the submission that once a recommendation had been made by the Collector in 2008, a vested right will enure to the benefit of the fourth respondent and that all the steps that remained to be taken were of a ministerial nature.

The State Government, by its order dated 1 November 2011, empowered the Collectors to take a decision at their own level. Here again, it is not in dispute that no decision as such was taken by the Collector until 31 May 2012, when the provisions of Chapter IV of the Rules came to be applied. The subsequent Government Order dated 5 September 2012 clarifies that only one method for the execution of mining leases has been found to be in public interest and in the interest of revenue and as and when the terms of existing leases would come to an end, it was only the process of e-tendering which was required to be followed. The fourth respondent, both in regard to its application for the grant of a fresh mining lease as well as in respect of the renewal of an existing lease, had acquired no vested right either for the grant or renewal of a mining lease. Once the Government Order dated 31 May 2012 took effect, the petitioner had no case to assert that the pending application of the petitioner would be governed by Chapter II and not by Chapter IV of the Rules.

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."

(emphasis supplied)

It needs to be noted that the State had filed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.35075 of 2014 against the judgment rendered in Sukhan Singh and the Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed on 5 January 2015. It also needs to be noted that even against the decision of the Division Bench in Nar Narain Mishra, the Special Leave to Appeal which was filed by the State was dismissed.

There can be no dispute that the grant of a mining lease is distinct from the execution of a lease deed for it is only after the grant that a lease deed can be executed. Under the Government Order dated 31 May 2012 no mining lease can be granted or renewed after 31 May 2012. The relevant date, therefore, is the date on which mining lease was granted/renewed. The State Government has not annexed the orders regarding grant/renewal of leases in favour of private respondent Nos.4 to 22 and has only given details of fresh mining leases in a Chart enclosed as Annexure-CA-I. The same are as follows:-

Detail of fresh mining leases

dza0 la0

iVVk/kkjd dk uke

xzke

[k.M la0

,dM+

Uk;s iVVs dk vkosnu i= izkIr djus dk fnuakd

Uk;s [kuu iVVs dh iwoZ lgefr izk:i&[email protected] Ik;kZoj.k LoPNrk izek.k i= ds izLrqr fd;s tkus dh lgefr dk fnuakd

'kklu dh iwoZ lgefr izkIr gksus ds mijkUr [kuu iVVk Lohd`r fd;s tkus dk fnuakd

Jh jes'k dqekj feJk

PkUnokjh

/kqjkSyh

[email protected]

,dM+

12-01-2010

24-05-2012

20-02-2013

Jherh ekyrh feJk

bNkSjk

ftVdjh

[email protected]

,dM+

21-11-+2008

24-05-2012

05-03-2013

Jherh ekyrh feJk

bNkSjk

ftVdjh

[email protected]

,dM+

21-11-2008

24-05-2012

05-03-2013

Jherh ekyrh feJk

bNkSjk

ftVdjh

[email protected]

,dM+

22-11-2008

24-05-2012

20-02-2013

Jh lqjs'k dqekj feJk

PkUnokjh

/kqjkSyh

[email protected]

,dM+

12-01-2010

24-05-2012

20-02-2013

Jh izeksn dqekj

Hkqylh

[email protected]

,dM+

03-03-2010

24-05-2012

19-02-2013

Jh fouksn dqekj

bLykeiqj

,dM+

05-08-2010

24-05-2012

20-02-2013

Jh v'kksd dqekj

afcjgV

,dM+

05-08-2010

24-05-2012

20-02-2013

Jh fnus'k dqekj

cU/kSkyh

,dM+

30-07-2010

24-05-2012

19-03-2013

Jh lqjs'k dqekj feJk

bNkSjk

ftVdjh

[email protected]

,dM+

21-11-2008

24-05-2012

20-02-2013

Jh fnus'k dqekj feJk

PkUnokjh

/kqjkSyh

[email protected]

,dM+

12-01-2010

24-05-2012

20-02-2013

Jh enu iky flag

fpdlh

[email protected]

,dM+

20-11-2008

21-04-2010

21-03-2013

Jh lqjs'k dqekj feJk

bNkSjk

ftVdjh

[email protected]

,dM+

21-11-2008

24-05-2012

06-03-2013

Jherh jfc;k csxe

IkR;kSjk

[email protected]

,dM+

21-11-2008

14-01-2010

19-09-2013

Jh jes'k dqekj feJk

ftVdjh

nfj;k

1]2 o 3

,dM+

30-07-2010

24-05-2012

08-04-2013

Jh ?ku';ke vuqjkxh

fj:vk

clfj;k

[email protected]

,dM+

12-10-2006

04-12-2006

11-02-2014

Jherh dkS'ksY;k pkScs

fpdklh

[email protected]

,dM+

17-10-2006

04-12-2006

18-12-2014

The State Government has also given details of mining leases which have been renewed in the counter affidavit and the same are as follows :

Detail of renewed mining leases

dza0 la0

iVVk/kkjd dk uke

xzke

[k.M la0

jdck

Ukohuhdj.k vkosnu i= izkIr djus dk fnuakd

ftykf/kdkjh }kjk vkosnd ds i{k esa fu/kkZfjr izk:i [email protected] Ik;kZoj.k foHkkx ds LoPNrk izek.k i= izsf"kr fd;s tkus ds fnukad

'kklukns'k la[;k &26-02-2013 vuqikyu esa uouhudj.k [kuu iVVk ftykf/kdkjh dh Lohd`fr dk fnuakd

Jh gfj'kpUnz

ftxuh

,dM+

29-11-2007

i=koyh 'kklu es gSaaA

Jh es0 gfjgj feujYl

HksM+h

[kjdk

[email protected]

,dM+

03-06-2009

12-12-2009

12-04-2013

Jh enu iky flag

bNkSjk

ftVdjh

[email protected]

,dM+

18-09-2008

06-08-2009

12-04-2013

Jh gfjgj feujYl

bNkSjk

ftVdjh

[email protected]

,dM+

08-09-2009

12-12-2009

12-04-2013

Jh gfjgj feujYl

fpdklh

[email protected]

,dM+

08-09-2009

11-12-2009

26-04-2013

Jh gfjgj feujYl

HksM+h

[kjdk

[email protected]

,dM+

03-06-2009

12-12-2009

12-04-2013

Jh g"kZo/kZu 'kqDyk

d.MkSj

[email protected]

,dM+

08-07-2009

30-01-2010

12-04-2013

Jherh ek;k nhf{kr

bNkSjk

ftVdjh

[email protected]

,dM+

10-08-2010

23-05-2012

10-04-2013

Jh jes'k dqekj feJk

Vhdkiqj

[email protected]

,dM+

25-10-2010

23-05-2012

20-04-2013

Jh jkds'k dqkej nhf{kr

bNkSjk

ftVdjh

[email protected]

,dM+

11-11-2009

14-01-2010

10-04-2013

Jh es0 gfjgj feujYl

HksM+h

[kjdk

[email protected]

,dM+

03-06-2009

12-12-2009

12-04-2013

Jh gfjgj feujYl

fj:vk clfj;k

[email protected]

,dM+

08-09-2009

12-12-2009

12-04-2013

Jh izseukFk 'kekZ

Vhdkiqj

[email protected]

,dM+

29-07-2009

21-04-2012

27-02-2013

Jh izseukFk 'kekZ

fj:vk clfj;k

[email protected]

,dM+

29-07-2009

21-04-2012

27-02-2013

Jh eqUuhyky vxzoky

uSBh

[email protected]

,dM+

30-11-2007

10-02-2009

14-08-2013

Jh jkds'k vxzoky

lgqjkiqj

[email protected]

,dM+

26-04-2008

10-02-2009

10-08-2013

Jh c`teksgu flag

csjh

[email protected]

,dM+

23-06-2009

19-01-2010

22-07-2013

Jh jktss'k dqekj lkgw

d.MkSj

[email protected]

,dM+

22-07-2009

24-02-2010

13-08-2013

Jh nso ukjk;.k nhf{kr

uSBh

[email protected]

,dM+

25-04-2011

23-05-2012

08-05-2013

Jh nso ukjk;.k nhf{kr

uSBh

[email protected]

,dM+

21-12-2010

23-05-2012

10-04-2013

Jh f'kojke vkfn

Vhdkiqj

[email protected]

,dM+

24-12-2010

23-05-2012

10-04-2013

Jh xksih d`".k vksej

bNkSjk

ftVdjh

[email protected]

,dM+

23-05-2008

23-05-2012

21-11-2013

Jh jkts'k dqekj lkgw

fxeqgk

[email protected]

,dM+

08-04-2008

02-01-2014

06-02-2014

Jherh eksrh ckbZ

csjh

[email protected]

,dM+

05-05-2011

23-05-2013

17-05-2014

Jherh uhjtk flag

cDNk[kk nj

[email protected]

,dM+

14-12-2009

27-12-2012

03-03-2014

Jh ftrsUnz eksgu /kkou

pUnokjh

/kqjkSyh

[email protected]

,dM+

14-10-2011

23-05-2012

10-05-2013

Jh jkds'k dqekj nhf{kr

bNkSjk

ftVdjh

[email protected]

,dM+

01-12-20111

23-05-2012

10-04-2013

Jh lquhy dqekj

cDNk[kk nj

[email protected]

,dM+

29-11-2007

02-08-2008

27-05-2014

Jh lqjs'k dqekj feJk

ftxuh

,dM+

01-05-2012

23-05-2012

10-05-2013

Jh lqjs'k dqekj feJk

ftxuh

,dM+

01-05-2012

23-05-2012

09-05-2013

Jh fnus'k dqekj feJk

Vksyk [kxkju

,dM+

01-05-2012

23-05-2012

10-05-2013

Jh ftrsUnz eksgu /kkou

pUnokjh

/kqjkSyh

[email protected]

,dM+

14-01-2011

23-05-2012

27-05-2014

At this stage, it would be appropriate to advert to the relevant Rules contained in Chapter II. Rule 5 deals with application for grant or renewal of mining lease. It provides that an application in Form MM-I for grant of mining lease or in Form MM-I(a) for renewal shall be addressed to the State Government and shall be submitted in quadruplicate to the District Officer or to the officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government and shall be entered in a Register of mining lease application in Form MM-2. Rule 7 deals with enquiry and reports. It provides that the District Officer shall, unless he is authorised to grant or renew the mining lease, cause an enquiry to be made into all relevant matters and, within two months from the date of receipt of application of mining lease, forward two copies of the application alongwith his report to the State Government or to such other authority as the State Government may authorise in this behalf. Rule 8 deals with disposal of applications. It provides that the State Government or the authority authorised by it in this behalf may, subject to the provisions of the Rules and after making such further enquiries, as it may consider necessary, in the case of application for grant of a mining lease, refuse or grant the mining lease and in the case of an application for renewal of a mining lease, refuse or renew the mining lease. The State Government or the authority authorised by it may, therefore, either refuse the mining lease or grant the mining lease.

It is in the light of the aforesaid provisions that the chart annexed by the State Government in its counter affidavit in regard to grant of fresh mining leases or renewal of mining leases has to be examined. The first six columns of the two charts give details of (i) serial numbers; (ii) applicants; (iii) plot numbers; (iv) the village; (v) the area; and (vi) the date of receipt of applications. Column (vii) deals with prior consent in Form-2 the date of environmental clearance, while Column (viii) gives the 'sweekriti' of the mining lease after the receipt of the prior consent from the State Government.

The bone of contention between the petitioner and the respondents is about the dates mentioned in columns (vii) and (viii). According to the petitioner, the dates of grant/renewal of leases are those contained in column (viii) which dates are after 31 May 2012, while according to the respondents, the dates of grant/renewal of leases are those contained in column (vii), which dates are prior to 31 May 2012. It is for this reason that the petitioner asserts that the procedure prescribed in Chapter IV for grant/renewal of mining lease is applicable, while the respondents contend that the procedure prescribed in Chapter II for grant/renewal of mining lease is applicable.

The dispute, therefore, depends on the meaning of the word ''sweekriti'. The task of the Court has become simple for the reason that in the Hindi version of Rule 8, the word ''sweekriti' has been used. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to reproduce the Hindi version of Rule 8 and the same is :

"8- izkFkZuki= dk fuLrkj.k& ¼1½ jkT; ljdkj ;k mlds }kjk bl fufeRr izkf/kd`r izkf/kdkjh] bl fu;ekoyh ds micU/kkas ds v/khu jgrs gq, vkSj ,slh vxzsrj tkap tks og vko';d le>s] djus ds i'pkr&

¼d½ [kuu iVVs ds fy, izkFkZuk&i= dh fLFkrh esa ;k rks izkFkZuk& i= vLohdkj dj ldrh gS ;k vkosfnr {ks= ds iwjs ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ds fy, vkSj ,slh vof/k ds fy,] tSlh og mfpr le>s] [kuu iVVk Lohd`r dj ldrh gSA

¼[k½ [kuu iVVs ds uohuhdj.k ds fy, izkFkZuk&i= dh fLFkrh esa ;k rks izkFkZuk& i= vLohdkj dj ldrh gS ;k vkosfnr {ks= ds lEiw.kZ ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ds fy, vkSj ewy iVVs dks vof/k ls vuf/kd ,slh vof/k ds fy,] tks og mfpr le>s] [kuu iVVk dk uohuhdj.k dj ldrkh gSA

izfrcfU/kr ;g gS fd tc [kuu & iVVk nsus ;k mlds uohuhdj.k dk izkFkZuk&i= vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gS ;k {ks= esa deh dh tkrh gS rks mlds dkj.k vfHkfyf[kr fd, tk;saxs vkSj vkosnd dks laalwfpr fd, tk;saxsaA"

When the Hindi version of Rule 8 is compared with the English version of Rule 8, there is no manner of doubt that the word ''sweekriti' would mean ''grant'. If that be so, then the dates mentioned in column (viii) would be relevant for the purpose of determining the date on which the leases were granted/renewed since ''sweekriti' has been issued in Column (viii). The dates mentioned in column (viii) are all after 31 May 2012. It inevitably follows that in terms of the notification dated 31 May 2012, the grant/renewal of the leases in issue in the present petition in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 22 would be governed by the provisions contained in Chapter IV of the Rules and not Chapter II of the Rules. However, as the records indicate and what is also admitted to the respondents, leases were granted/renewed in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 22 under Chapter II and not in the manner prescribed under Chapter IV of the Rules. The grant/renewal of the leases in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 22 and the execution of the lease deeds in their favour are, therefore, illegal and deserve to be set aside. The stand of the respondents that once the State Government had given its prior consent prior to 31 May 2012 and only formal orders remained to be issued by the Collectors, the provisions of Chapter II of the Rules would be applicable, cannot be accepted in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sukhan Singh, wherein this precise contention was raised but was repelled. Much reliance has been placed by Sri Mukesh Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the some of the respondents on the Government Order dated 1 November 2011 . In this connection, it needs to be pointed out that earlier a Government Order dated 28 February 2004 was issued. The said Government Order required prior permission of the State Government where the value of the mining lease was in excess of Rs.5 lacs. By Government Order dated 1 November 2011, the District Collectors were permitted to dispose of the applications at their level. It cannot be said that mere forwarding of the applications to the State Government for its prior consent would mean that the District Magistrate had granted/renewed the lease. The leases, as noticed above, were actually granted after 31 May 2012.

Likewise, the distinction sought to be drawn by learned counsel for the respondents that there is a difference between the grant of lease and the execution of the lease deed is not of much relevance in the present case because even the grant/renewal of the mining leases were after 31 May 2012.

Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the grant/renewal of leases in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 22 and the subsequent execution of lease deeds in their favour are set aside. The District Collector shall ensure that henceforth the said respondents do not carry out any mining activity on the basis of the grant/renewal in their favour.

It is, however, left open to the State Government to cause an enquiry to be made in regard to the illegal grant/renewal of mining leases in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 22 and to take appropriate action in the light of the report against the officer(s) and or respondent Nos.4 to 22.

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.

Order Date :-16 October 2015

NSC/SK

(Dilip Gupta, J.)

(Vinod Kumar Misra, J.)