Allahabad High Court

Ram Gopal Chaudhary vs State Of U.P.And 2 Others on 7 January, 2025

Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra, Jayant Banerji





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Reserved
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2593-DB
 
Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9936 of 2020
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Gopal Chaudhary
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhanshu Kumar,Swapnil Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

(Per: Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J)

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This writ petition was initially filed challenging the order dated 12.3.2020, passed by the respondent no. 2, the District Magistrate, Agra, whereby the mining lease granted to the petitioner under the provisions of Chapter IV of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concessions) Rules, 19631 was cancelled under the provisions of Rule 58 read with Rule 60 of the Rules, 1963 and also blacklisted the petitioner under the provision of sub-rule(1) of Rule 61 of the said Rules, 1963.

3. It appears from the record that the petitioner filed a previous writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 24179 (M/B) of 2019 (Ram Gopal Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and others), in which writ petition, an order dated 5.9.2019 was passed dismissing the petition while permitting the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the Director, Geology and Mining, Government of Uttar Pradesh.

4. It appears that yet another writ petition bearing Writ-C No. 42366 of 2019 was filed by the petitioner before this Court which was disposed of by a judgment and order dated 3.1.2020 with a direction to the Director to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

5. The aforesaid order dated 3.1.2020 was initially not served on the Director of Geology and Mining, Government of U.P. but, however, thereafter when a notice dated 29.1.2020 was sent by the Mining Department, then a copy of the order dated 3.1.2020 passed in Writ-C No. 42366 of 2019 was sent to the District Magistrate as well as to the Director. In this regard, the petitioner has sought to clarify that the order of this Court was not uploaded timely and was only uploaded on 5.2.2020, whereafter the petitioner obtained a certified copy of the order of 3.1.2020 and sent it on 18.2.2020 by speed post.

6. Thereafter, other impugned order dated 2.7.2020 was passed by the Directorate, Government of U.P., Lucknow. By way of an amendment in the writ petition, the order of the Director dated 2.7.2020 was challenged.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that firstly, he had commenced his mining operation and was continuing his mining and during mining, soil was discovered which was in mixed state with sand. Therefore, under the provision of Rule 32 of the Rules, 1963, notice was given by the petitioner on 31.12.2018 to the District Magistrate informing him about the other mineral so discovered and it is contended that the mining work was stopped.

8. It is stated that a Joint Inspection Team was constituted which submitted its report dated 26.3.2019 which reflected the minerals in mixed condition available at the site. Thereafter by a notice dated 7.7.2019, the District Magistrate, the respondent no.3 issued a notice to the petitioner demanding various instalments for the first and second year. It is contended that none of these instalments were payable inasmuch as under the provisions of Rule 32 of the Rules, 1963, there is specific bar imposed on the petitioner from winning and disposing of the mineral. After considering the applied condition of the petitioner, a recovery certificate dated 11.11.2019 was issued for recovery of the amount claimed by the District Magistrate in the notice aforesaid. It is stated that under these circumstances, the petitioner was compelled to file writ petition bearing Writ-C No. 42366 of 2019, which was disposed of with a direction to the Director to consider the claim of the petitioner with further condition that the demand notice dated 7.7.2019 and the recovery citation dated 11.11.2019 would be kept in abeyance and would be subject to the final decision of the Director. It is stated that yet another notice dated 29.1.2020 was issued by the State Government in the teeth of the order of this Court dated 3.1.2020. By registered letters dispatched on 18.2.2020, the petitioner then sent copies of the judgment passed in Writ-C No. 42366 of 2019 to the District Magistrate, Agra and to the Director.

9. By the impugned order dated 12.3.2020, the mining lease of the petitioner was cancelled. It is stated that prior to that cancellation, a joint inspection report was prepared by a team of the officials of the Revenue and Mines Department, who had also found minerals in mixed state and in certain pits what were dug.

10. By the impugned order dated 2.7.2020, the representation of the petitioner was dismissed by the Director. It is stated that the Director had not correctly decided the representation of the petitioner and passed the order in the teeth of the direction dated 3.2.2020. It is further contended that the District Magistrate despite having joint inspection report dated 29.11.2019, has proceeded to cancel the mining lease without considering the fact that under the provision of Rule 32, the mining operations had been stopped by the petitioner and he could not be compelled to make payment of the instalment that were demanded by means of the notice dated 17.7.2019.

11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Director in its impugned order of 2.7.2020 has merely relied on the comments of the District Magistrate and has decided the matter which evinces that he has not applied his mind while passing the order impugned. While referring to paragraph 41 of the writ petition, it is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that before blacklisting the petitioner by the impugned order, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner.

12. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel Sri S.K. Singh has drawn attention of this Court to the provisions of proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 23 of the Rules, 1963 as well as to a Government Order No.22/2020/1955/86-2019-57 (Sa)/2017 dated 30.8.2019 issued by the department of Geology and Mining to all the District Magistrates to contend that it mandates assessing the quantity of mineral at the site of mining and in case of dis-agreement between the parties as to the quantity of mineral, the Director of Geology and Mining would decide the matter and his decision would be final. Learned counsel has referred to the joint inspection report dated 29.11.2019 filed as Annexure No. 1 to the counter affidavit to contend that the joint inspection report reflects that sufficient amount of sand was available. It is stated that this joint inspection report has been relied on in the impugned order of the Director dated 2.7.2020 to reject the representation of the petitioner. It is stated that given the factual scenario evident from the aforesaid joint inspection report, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 had no option, but to proceed in accordance with law by rejecting the representation and cancel the mining lease, respectively, by means of the impugned orders. While referring to the provisions of Rule 32 of the Rules, 1963, it is stated that in the notice of the petitioner dated 31.12.2018, there is no averment made by the petitioner as to what mineral other than sand was discovered by him during the course of mining. Learned counsel in this regard has referred to representation dated 18.9.2019 filed by the petitioner that is enclosed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition, in which a categorical averment was made by the petitioner that mining lease area was stopped from 26.5.2019 which reflected that mining of minerals for which lease was granted continued for nearly half of the year in 2019. It is further stated that with regard to the prohibition under Rule 32 relating to winning and disposal of minerals, it extends only to such minerals that are found other than minerals for which lease is granted.

13. As is evident from the record that the petitioner was granted a mining lease for a period of five years with effect from 15.6.2018 to 14.6.2023. As per the term of the lease deed, the instalments were fixed in respect of each year. The petitioner defaulted in payment of total amount of third instalment of the first year and the following installments which led to passing of the impugned order by the District Magistrate on 12.3.2020. A perusal of the order dated 12.3.2020 reflects that repeated notices were issued to the petitioner purportedly under Rule 58(1). The order refers to the petitioner's letter/application dated 31.12.2018. In this letter, the petitioner had mentioned that 2 to 3 feet layer of soil has been found and an inspection be made. The order impugned refers to a joint inspection by a technical committee of mining area on 29.11.2019, in which it was specifically mentioned that the quantity of sand, mining of which was approved, is available for mining purposes in the leased area. The order noted the default made by the petitioner as well as the fact that even prior to grant of mining lease in the advertisement itself it was mentioned that bidder has to satisfy himself after inspection as to the quantity of minerals available. It was held that the petitioner has violated the term of the lease deed deliberately; that violation of terms of the lease was done by the petitioner and, therefore, in view of the provision of Rules 58 and 60 of the Rules 1963, the lease was being cancelled/terminated. It was directed that recovery certificate be issued with regard to the amount of dues, and, under the provision of Rule 60(1) of the Rules, 1963, the petitioner be placed on the blacklist for a period of five years.

14. The application of the petitioner dated 31.12.2018 reads as under:-

"सेवा में,

श्रीमान् जिलाधिकारी जी

आगरा

विषय- बालू खनन में निकल रही मिट्टी के सम्बंध में।

महोदय,

अवगत कराना है कि प्रार्थी को उ०प्र० सरकार द्वारा ग्राम करगना (आगरा) में बालू खनन का पट्टा मिला है, मेरे द्वारा उक्त पट्टे के खनन प्रक्रिया संचालित की जा रही है। जिसमें लगभग दो से तीन फीट मिट्टी की परत निकल रही है। अतः आपसे विनम्र निवेदन है कि नियमानुसार जाँच कराने का कष्ट करें।

आपकी अति कृपा होगी।

दिनांक 31.12.2018						प्रार्थी
 
								  रामगोपाल चौधरी
 
								  रामगोपाल चौधरी
 
							     पुत्र स्व० श्री कालूराम चौधरी
 
							162/2 विजय नगर कालोनी इटावा
 
								मो० 7275930194"

15. It has not been mentioned in the notice dated 31.12.2018 as to on which date the other mineral for which no lease was granted was discovered.

16. It is pertinent to mention here that a representation dated 18.09.2019 was moved by the petitioner before the Director of Geology and Mining, Department of U.P. By the other order impugned dated 2.7.2020, that representation of the petitioner was rejected. While rejecting the application, the Director noted the inspection report dated 29.11.2019 submitted by the Inspection Team and noted that there was adequate amount of sand available that could be mined.

17. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 32 of the Rules, 1963 which reads as follows:-

"32. Discovery of other minerals- (1) The lessee shall report to the State Government the discovery in the leased area of any mineral not specified in the lease, within thirty days of such discovery.

(2) If any mineral not specified in the lease is discovered in the leased area, the lessee shall not win and dispose of such mineral unless a separate lease is obtained therefor."

18. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 32 mandates the lessee to report to the State Government the discovery in the leased area of any mineral not specified in the lease, within thirty days of such discovery. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 32, the lessee is prohibited for winning or disposing of such minerals which is not specified in the lease and discovered in the leased area unless a separate lease is obtained therefor. The prohibition in sub-rule (2) of Rule 32 is not that the lessee shall not win and dispose of such minerals for which lease is granted. While formulating Rule 32, the State Government was well aware that mere discovery of some other minerals or specified in the lease ought not to come in the way of lessee from winning and disposing of minerals for which lease is granted.

19. It is pertinent to mention here that Rules, 1963 were amended from time to time with amendments taking place by means of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) (Forty Seventh Amendment) Rules, 2019 which was notified and published in the Gazette of Government of U.P. dated 13.8.2019. By these amendment Rules, inter alia, Rule 23 was substituted and Rule 29A was inserted. Rule 23(1) provided for declaration of area or areas with geo-coordinates which the State Government may declare by general or special order which may be leased out by e-tender/e-auction/e-tender-cum-e-auction. Sub-rule (4) thereof mandates the District Officer to get the area or areas declared under sub-rule (1) evaluated for quality and quantity of minerals for fixing minimum bid or offer by the Director, Geology and Mining, U.P. or by an officer authorized by him before the date fixed for e-tender/e-auction/e-tender-cum-e-auction. However, the proviso to sub-rule (4) provides that the District Magistrate, if the need so arises, may, through the technical committee set up by the Government, assesses the amount of minor minerals available in the river bed, once in a year, post monsoon. In case of disagreement between parties, the Director, Geology and Mining shall decide the matter and such decision shall be final.

20. It is pertinent to mention here that a report of a joint inspection team dated 26.3.2019 was submitted pertaining to the leased area which reads as follows:-

"संयुक्त जाँच आख्या

महोदय,

कृपया भूतत्व एवं खनिकर्म निदेशालय, उ०प्र०, खनिज भवन, लखनऊ के कार्यालय आदेश संख्या 2665/एम०-21 सीमाबन्धन/2018, दिनांक 27.02.2019 के अनुपालन में अपर जिलाधिकारी (वि०/रा०)/प्रभारी अधिकारी खनिज, आगरा के पत्र संख्या 1133/खनिज अनुभाग, दिनांक 13.03.2019 के क्रम में श्री रामगोपाल चौधरी पुत्र स्व० कालूराम चौधरी निवासी 162/2 विजयनगर गली नं०-2, तहसील व जिला इटावा के पक्ष में ई निविदा सह ई नीलामी प्रणाली के माध्यम से तहसील सदर के ग्राम करमना स्थित गाटा संख्या 63/2, क्षेत्रफल 6.07 है. में स्वीकृत बालू खनन पट्टा जो दिनांक 15.06.2018 से 14.06.2023 तक 05 वर्ष की अवधि के लिए निष्पादित है, के सम्बन्ध में सीमाबन्धन आख्या चाही गयी है।

प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में दिनांक 26.03.2019 को गठित टीम के सदस्यों द्वारा संयुक्त रूप से पट्टेधारक/प्रतिनिधि की उपस्थिति में पट्टा क्षेत्र का निरीक्षण किया गया। वर्तमान में उक्त स्वीकृत क्षेत्र के सीमा स्तम्भ ए.बी.सी.डी. अपने यथा स्थान पर पाये गये। स्वीकृत क्षेत्र के अन्दर जो खनन पाया गया वह ऊपरी सतह पर औसतन 0.7 मीटर मिट्टी की परत उसके नीचे औसतन 1.1 मीटर बालू की परत तथा उसके नीचे औसतन 1 मीटर बरसों पुराना डिपोजिट कंकरिट मिश्रित बालू दिखायी दिया। उपखनिज को परिभाषित किये जाने के लिए उपखनिज विशेषज्ञ भूगर्भ शास्श्री द्वारा परिभाषित करने पर पट्टा क्षेत्र में उपलब्ध बालू/मिट्टी का आंकलन किया जाना सम्भव होगा।

आख्या आवश्यक कार्यवाही हेतु प्रेषित।

ह० अपठनीय				ह० अपठनीय			ह० अपठनीय
 
26.3.2019				26.3.2019			26.3.2019
 
(अमरीश्वर चौधरी)			(राज कुमार)			(दिनेश कुमार)
 
पट्टाधारक/प्रतिनिधि			लेखपाल करमना		सर्वेक्षक क्षे०का०, गाजियाबाद।
 
			ह० अपठनीय			ह०अपठनीय
 
			(आशीष द्विवेदी)			(शिवी सिंह)
 
			खान निरीक्षक,			खान अधिकारी,
 
			   आगरा।		               आगरा।"

21. Pursuant to the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition No. 24179(M/B) of 2019 with the liberty granted by the Court, the petitioner had filed a representation dated 18.9.2019 before the Director, Geology and Mining, in which, inter alia, he stated that in the leased area, sand, soil and old deposited concrete are lying in a mixed state and assessment of soil and sand can be done by an expert technical team. The representation refers to a previous report of expert team dated 26.3.2019 and it was alleged that without determining the amount of sand available at the leased area and without inspecting the area as per rule, e-tender/e-auction for the site was advertised. Further objection was raised that Khasra No. 63/2 is situated in the middle of the flow of the river.

22. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the joint inspection report submitted by a technical team dated 29.11.2019 which reads as under:-

"संयुक्त निरीक्षण आख्या

भूतत्व एवं खनिकर्म अनुभाग उत्तर प्रदेश शासन लखनऊ की अधिसूचना संख्या 1868/86-2019-57(स०)/2019 दिनांक 13.08.2019 द्वारा प्रख्यापित उ.प्र. उपखनिज (परिहार) (सैतालिसवाँ संशोधन) नियमावली 2019 के नियम 23(4) के प्रावधानों के परिप्रेक्ष्य में शासनादेश संख्या 1955/86-2019-57 (सा.) दिनांक 30.08.2019 के क्रम में जिलाधिकारी महोदय के आदेश संख्या 470/खनिज सहायक दिनांक 29.09.2019 द्वारा जनपद स्तर पर नदीतल में उपलब्ध उपखनिजों की मात्रा के निर्धारण हेतु प्राविधिक समिति का गठन अपर जिलाधिकारी (वि०/रा०)/प्रभारी अधिकारी खनिज आगरा के पत्र संख्या 673/खनिज सहायक दिनांक 27.11.2019 द्वारा खनन पट्टा क्षेत्र का स्थलीय निरीक्षण दिनांक 29.11.2019 को समिति द्वारा जनपद आगरा के तहसील सदर स्थित ग्राम करमना के आराजी संख्या 63/2 रकवा 6.07हेक्टेयर क्षेत्र पर साधारण बालू का खनन पट्टा दिनांक 15.06.2018 से 14.06.2023 तक पाँच वर्ष की अवधि हेतु स्वीकृत/निष्पादित किया गया है, पट्टेधारक श्री रामगोपाल चौधरी पुत्र स्व० कालूराम चौधरी निवासी 162/2 विजय नगर तहसील व जिला इटावा की उपस्थिति में क्षेत्र का स्थलीय निरीक्षण/सर्वेक्षण किया गया। निरीक्षण के दौरान स्वीकृत पट्टा क्षेत्र के चारो सीमाओं को मौके पर निर्धारण करते हुये पट्टा क्षेत्र के अन्तर्गत उपलब्ध साधारण बालू का सत्यापन किया गया। सत्यापन के दौरान पट्टा क्षेत्र में 05 पिट्स की खुदाई कराकर बालू की उपलब्धता की स्थिति देखी गई। पिट्स की खुदाई से यह स्पष्ट हुआ कि कुछ क्षेत्र में उपरी सतह में लगभग 0.30 मीटर से 0.60 मीटर मिट्टी बालू के बाद 6 इंच से 10 इंच तक मिट्टी की परत पाई गयी। जबकि कुछ क्षेत्र में पर्याप्त मात्रा में मिट्टी विहीन खनन योग्य बालू उपलब्ध है। सम्पूर्ण पट्टा क्षेत्र के निरीक्षण से स्पष्ट हो रहा है कि पट्टा धारक के पक्ष में जितनी मात्रा स्वीकृत है उतनी खनन योग्य बालू की मात्रा उपलब्ध है।

निरीक्षण आख्या आवश्यक कार्यवाही हेतु प्रेषित।

ह० अपठनीय				ह० अपठनीय		ह० अपठनीय
 
29.11.2019				29.11.2019		29.11.2019
 
(पूनाराम अहाके)				(विपिन कुमार)		(मनोज कुमार)
 
खान निरीक्षक 				जिलेदार-प्रथम		अवर अभियंता
 
आगरा।				सिचांई विभाग आगरा।	निर्माण खण्ड-1 (टी.टी.जेड)
 
							लोक निर्माण विभाग आगरा।
 

 
ह०अपठनीय			ह०अपठनीय		ह०अपठनीय
 
(आर.बी. सिंह)			   (डॉ. पी.के. सिंह)		(रमेशचन्द)
 
सहा०भूवैज्ञानिक अधिकारी	         	प्रभारी अधिकारी		अप जिलाधिकारी (वि०/रा०)/
 
उ०प्र० प्रदूषण नियंत्रण बोर्ड	        	भुतत्व एवं खनिकर्म	    	प्रभारी अधिकारी खनिज
 
आगरा।				 क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय आगरा।	आगरा।"

23. A perusal of the report reflects that the technical team that was constituted consisted of six members viz. Mines Inspector, Ziledar-I of Irrigation Department, Junior Engineer of Construction Division-I (T.T.Z.) Public Works Department, Assistant Scientific Officer of U.P. Pollution Control Board, Officer Incharge of Regional Office of Geology and Mining, and, Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Officer Incharge (Mines).

24. A perusal of the report reflects that during the inspection, the boundary of mining area were determined and availability of ordinary sand within the leased area was verified. During inspection, 5 pits were dug and position of availability of sand was seen. On inspection of the entire leased area, the conclusion was that in respect of the amount of minerals approved to be extracted by the lease holder, that quantity of sand is available.

25. Therefore, the aforenoted joint inspection report dated 29.11.2019 was in continuity of previous report dated 26.3.2019. As already stated the joint inspection technical team, which submitted the report dated 29.11.2019 consisted of Mines Inspector, Ziledar-I of Irrigation Department, Junior Engineer of Construction Division -I (T.T.Z.) Public Works Department, Assistant Scientific Officer of U.P. Pollution Control Board, Officer Incharge of Regional Office of Geology and Mining and Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Officer Incharge (Mines). Five separate pits were got dug in the area by the inspection team and the position of availability of sand was assessed and it was found that mineable quantity of sand to the extent of quantity sanctioned in the mining lease was available.

26. Thereafter, the petitioner by means of the aforesaid Writ-C No. 42366 of 2019 challenged the order of demand of royalty and consequent recovery citation issued against the petitioner. By means of judgment and order dated 3.1.2020, the writ petition was disposed of with direction to the Director, Geology and Mining to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The demand of royalty and the recovery citation were kept in abeyance and made subject to final decision of the Director. The judgment of this Court dated 3.1.2020 reads as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of demand of royalty to the tune of Rs. 84,89,760/- and for the recovery of the same, the recovery citation has been issued against the petitioner on 11.11.2019.

The petitioner was granted mining lease by executing a lease deed dated 15.06.2018 for a period of 5 years immediately thereafter, when the mining operation started, the petitioner found that there were other minerals in the mining area and the petitioner made a complaint on 31.10.2018 to the Mining Officer. The Mining Officer respondent no. 5 wrote a letter to the Director to constitute a Committee to investigate as to what kind of minerals are there at the mining area of the petitioner. A committee was constituted and it submitted its report on 26.03.2019 indicating therein that there are other minerals also available at the mining site. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 24179 of 2019 (Ram Gopal Chaudhary versus State of U.P.) which was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.09.2019 with liberty to approach the Director. The petitioner in pursuance thereon made a representation to the Director on 18.09.2019, that representation is still pending and has yet not been decided and demand of royalty has been made as stated above.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner Rule 32 of the Uttar Pradesh Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1963 prohibits the lessee to continue any mining operation where there are other minerals found. It is submitted that there were other minerals and no permission has been given to the petitioner excavating along with other minerals along with sand and therefore, the mining operation has been stayed and now royalty is being demanded.

A recovery citation has been issued and learned Standing Counsel was required to seek instructions and upon perusal of the instructions he submits that there are other minerals also available in the mining area but there are enough minerals for which the lease was granted i.e. sand to excavate and petitioner has been informed about this fact through a letter dated 11.12.2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the mineral i.e. sand and other mineral found in the leased area are so mixed that the petitioner is not able to excavate the sand alone for which the lease was granted. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not operating mining.

We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. When this fact is clear that there are other minerals also available in the mining area of the petitioner then according to Rule 32(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1963 no mining can be conducted by the petitioner, as any excavation of sand may result in the lessee wining and disposing of other minerals, which is not permissible, unless a separate lease is obtained therefore.

In this regard, the petitioner has already made a representation to the Director 18.09.2019 which is still pending to be decided and a demand has now being made.

No fruitful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending.

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Director to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law positively within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him.

It is also provided that demand dated 17.07.2019 and recovery citation dated 11.11.2019 shall be kept in abeyance and shall be subject to final decision of the Director."

27. The petitioner sent copy of the aforesaid order dated 3.1.2020 passed by this Court to the Director of Geology and Mining Directorate by means of letter dated 18.2.2020, this letter reads as follows:-

"सेवा में,

श्रीमान निदेशक

भूतत्व एवं खनिकर्म निदेशालय

खनिज भवन, उ०प्र०, लखनऊ।

विषयः- माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद की रिट सं० 42366/2019 रामगोपाल चौधारी बनाम स्टेट ऑफ उ०प्र० में पारित आदेश दिनांक 03.01.2020 का अनुपालन सुनिश्चित कराये जाने हेतु।

महोदय,

सविनय निवदेन है कि प्रार्थी रामगोपाल चौधरी पुत्र श्री कालूराम चौधरी निवासी 162/2 विजय नगर कालोनी, इटावा ने माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद में रिट याचिका सं०- 42366/2019 जिला आगरा रामगोपाल चौधरी बनाम स्टेट ऑफ उ०प्र० राज्य प्रस्तुत की जिसमें माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद द्वारा दिनांक 03.01.2020 को आदेश पारित किया गया। प्रार्थी माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद द्वारा उक्त वाद में पारित आदेश दिनांक 03.01.2020 की पक्की नकल प्रार्थना पत्र के साथ प्रस्तुत कर रहा है। ऐसी स्थिति में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा उक्त वाद पारित आदेश दि० 03.01.2020 का अनुपालन सुनिश्चित किया जाना आवश्यक है।

अतः श्रीमान जी से प्रार्थना है कि माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद की रिट याचिका संख्या-42366/2019 जिला आगरा रामगोपाल चौधरी बनाम उ०प्र० राज्य में पारित आदेश दि० 03.01.2020 का अनुपालन सुनिश्चित करने की कृपा करें।

संलग्न- माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश की मूल छाया प्रति।

दिनांकः 18.02.2020						प्रार्थी
 
								ह० रामगोपाल चौधरी
 
								(रामगोपाल चौधरी)
 
						       निवासी- 162/2 विजयनगर कालोनी
 
								        इटावा।"

28. No challenge has been made by the petitioner before the competent authority to the aforesaid report dated 29.11.2019 submitted by the Joint Inspection Team. The report of Joint Inspection Team has therefore, correctly been relied upon by the Director in rejecting the application of the petitioner.

29. In the counter affidavit, it has been categorically stated that the petitioner operated the mining lease till May 2019 which can be verified from the Forms eMM-11 that were generated.

30. In view of the aforesaid, the plea and defence being raised by the petitioner of his not being able to win and dispose of the ordinary sand, which was mineral for which lease was granted, is not tenable. A perusal of the impugned order dated 12.3.2020 reflects that the notices under the provisions of Rule 58(1) of the Rules, 1963 were given to the petitioner on 18.12.2018, 17.7.2019, 14.11.2019 and 29.1.2020, whereafter lease was cancelled/terminated by the impugned order dated 12.3.2020 and the petitioner was blacklisted.

31. In view of the aforesaid, the order of the Director, Geology and Mining dated 2.7.2020 cannot be faulted. It is pertinent to mention here that provision for surrender of mining lease as narrated aforesaid, were inserted by means of 47th Amendment to the Rules 1963 by way of Amendment of Rule 29A. The petitioner did not avail of the benefit of this provision. It is further stated that prior to passing of the impugned order dated 12.3.2020, the petitioner was pursuing his legal remedy before the High Court, firstly before the Lucknow Bench by means of writ petition bearing Writ Petition (M/B) No. 24179 of 2019 which was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 5.9.2019 with liberty to the petitioner to again approach the Director. It was then that the petitioner filed representation dated 18.9.2019. Again against the demand of royalty and consequent recovery citation issued against the petitioner, the petitioner filed Writ-C No. 42366 of 2019. Thus, it is evident that instead of moving to surrender the mining lease, the petitioner deliberately and repeatedly moved this Court and filed representation before the Director of Geology and Mining.

32. So far as the aspect of blacklisting is concerned, though the power to blacklist is available to the District Officer under the provision of sub-rule (2) of Rule 60 of the Rules, 1963, a categorical statement has been made in paragraph 41 of the writ petition that the order to blacklist the petitioner for five years was passed without giving any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the counter affidavit this allegation has not been specifically denied. The impugned order dated 12.3.2020 does not mention whether any show cause notice was given to the petitioner prior to passing of the order to blacklist. Therefore, the impugned order in so far as it blacklist the petitioner cannot be sustained in view of lack of service of a show cause notice in this regard. This view is supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gorkha Security Services Vs Government (NCT of Delhi) and others2. Therefore, the impugned order to that extent is quashed.

33. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since we have quashed the impugned order dated 12.3.2020 to the extent it blacklists the petitioner without any show cause notice, to that extent the writ petition is allowed. However, the rest of the impugned order dated 12.3.2020 and the entire order dated 2.7.2020, passed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3, respectively, are upheld.