Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar Sood vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 6 July, 2021
Bench: Manoj Misra, Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6862 of 2021
Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Sood
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Bhushan,Sushant, Sr. Advocate Shri Jitendra Mohan Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4; and have perused the record.
2. A brief reference of the relevant facts, shorn of unnecessary details, for understanding the controversy in issue, would be apposite. After much litigation, the petitioner secured mining rights. Challenging settlement of those rights, a writ petition, namely, Writ Petition No. 38034 of 2014, came to be filed by one Mohd. Aakil (respondent no.5) seeking quashing of the mining leases that were granted by the State. One of the lease of which quashing was sought was of the writ petitioner in the present petition. The Writ Petition No. 38034 of 2014 was allowed by judgment and order dated 15.12.2014 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, the operative portion of which reads as under:
"In the result, Writ Petition Nos. 38034 of 2014 and 38064 of 2014 are allowed. The lease granted in favour of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 by the District Magistrate, Sonebhadra, respondent no.2, by orders dated 24.05.2014 and 26.05.2014 on plot no. 6229 (Kha) measuring five acres in Village-Billi Markundi, Obra, Tehsil-Robertsganj District-Sonebhadra is quashed.
The District Magistrate is directed to stop the mining forthwith.
In view of the aforesaid, Writ Petition Nos. 12622 of 2014 and 12663 of 2014 are dismissed."
3. The Writ Petition Nos. 12622 of 2014 and 12663 of 2014 filed by mining lessees including the petitioner were dismissed as would be clear from the extracted portion of the order.
4. Aggrieved with this court's order (supra), the petitioner as well as other lessees, namely, Sulekhan Singh and Co., filed Special Leave Petitions before the Apex Court. These Special Leave Petitions gave rise to Civil Appeal Nos. 4845-4846 of 2015 and Civil Appeal Nos. 4847-4850 of 2015. These Civil Appeals, however, came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 04.01.2016. It appears, thereafter, the petitioner sought a review of the order passed by the Apex Court which too, was dismissed by order dated 10.03.2016.
5. Later, it appears, in separate matters, in writ proceedings taken by other parties through Writ C Nos. 30066 of 2017; 30092 of 2017; 30091 of 2017; 30064 of 2017; 30060 of 2017 and 30057 of 2017, a different interpretation, according to the petitioner, was accorded to the issues that were the basis of the decision against the petitioner in Writ C No.38034 of 2014. A reading of the operative portion of the order passed in Writ C No.30066 of 2017 along with other connected petitions would suggest that the petitioners therein were given liberty to approach the State Government with regard to their claim for lifting the restraint on mining operations imposed in terms of the Government Order dated 18.11.2016.
6. Taking advantage of certain observations made in the judgment of this Court in Writ C No. 30066 of 2017 (supra), dated 18.02.2020, the petitioner filed a representation before the Secretary, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow, Mining Department for restoration of his earlier mining patta / lease that was quashed by this Court, vide judgment and order dated 15.12.2014 (supra), by claiming that it was originally for a period up to 23.05.2024. In this petition, there is a prayer that a direction be issued upon the respondent no.1 to decide the said representation.
7. The learned Standing Counsel, who appears for the respondents, submitted that since the lease/ patta of the petitioner has already been quashed by this Court and the quashment order has been upheld by the Apex Court, there is no lease/patta in existence in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, revival of that patta/ lease is out of question by an executive fiat.
8. We find substance in the objection taken by the learned Standing Counsel. Once the lease is quashed by this Court and the judgment inter parties attains finality, unless and until that judgment is reviewed or set aside, the lease / patta, which has been quashed by the Court cannot be revived by the executive as they remain bound by the order passed earlier. It be observed that it is well settled legal principle that even if the law laid down by a judgment is subsequently upturned, the decision based thereon continues to bind the parties to it. We are therefore of the firm view that the mining lease /patta granted earlier in favour of the petitioner, which has been quashed by this Court cannot be revived on the basis of certain observations contained in a judgment rendered in a ligation between other parties. As the State Government would be bound by the earlier decision, no useful purpose would be served in issuing a direction as has been prayed for in this petition.
9. The petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.7.2021
Sunil Kr Tiwari
