Allahabad High Court
Achchhe Lal Yadav vs State Of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 19 May, 2017
Bench: Shri Narayan Shukla, Sheo Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 11056 of 2017
Petitioner :- Achchhe Lal Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Geology & Mine &Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Uttam Kumar Pathak
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,A.S.G.
Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla,J.
Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Mr. U.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sanjay Bhasin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
The petitioner has assailed the Government Order dated 22.04.2017, whereby the State Government has permitted the mining activities for short term through e-tendering process. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Government Order has already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in writ C No. 1498 of 2015 (annexure No.15) and the Court has made following observations:
"A reading of the Government Order dated 22 April 2017 evidence the same having been made in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 68 of the Rules 1963 Rules in the interest of development of minerals as well as in public interest."
"..........We therefore permit the State Government to proceed with the implementation of the interim mining policy as embodied in the order dated 22 April 2017 and vacate any interim orders operating in this batch of writ petitions which may restrain or restrict the State Government from proceeding further in terms of the Government Order aforementioned."
In view of the aforesaid submission of the coordinate Bench of this Court it is apparent that the State Government has proceeded for issuing permit of mining activities through e-tendering process in accordance with the observations made by this Court. The State Government in the impugned Government Order has also recorded the observations made by this Court in PIL No. 6827 of 2017 Amitabh Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, we quote relevant portion of the order:
"We may record that on a simple reading of Rules 68 of Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1963, it would be clear that the State Government has been given overriding power to issue such orders as may be necessary in the interest of Mineral Development in the State. The power so given to the State Government is all pervasive and the State must respond to the situation keeping in mind the Provisions of Rules 68. It will not be correct to suggest that it is only in a particular case that the State can resort to its power under Section 68. Such power cannot be confined to particular cases."
Thus the power of the State Government privileged to him under Section 68 of the Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 has been acknowledged by this Court.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if the State Government had admitted the e-tendering process it is under obligation to go through the procedure provided under Chapter VI of U.P. Minor and Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 .
We have considered the aforesaid submissions and are of the view that once this Court had discussed the issue in detail in the above case and permitted the State Government to process the mining permit under e-tendering process, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere in the same.
We further observe that once the State Government has been permitted to exercise his power under the privileged clause, if any procedure hurdle is there that shall not come in the way of process.
Therefore, we do not find any error in the Government Order dated 22.04.2017, that apart once this Court earlier had examined the same very case and permitted the State Government to proceed with e-tendering process, this is no stage at all to intervene in the mater.
In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.5.2017
A.K. Singh
(Sheo Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Shri Narayan Shukla, J.)
