STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. KILKILESHWAR MINING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.10.2008 passed by the Hon 'ble Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 76 (M/S) 2008 'Kilkileshwar Mining Company and Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. ' whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed and the impugned orders passed by the appellants were quashed. By the said judgment, the mining lease of the respondents was restored for the remaining period. However, it was clarified that if the respondents violate the conditions of the mining agreement, which was granted in their favour, the same could be cancelled after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to them, as provided in the Uttaranchal Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules,2001.

(2.) BRIEF facts, as emerge from the record, are that on 08 -05 -1987 a mining lease was executed between the Governor of Uttar Pradesh and one M/s Rajendra Rawat & Co., proprietor Ramesh Singh Rawat under the provisions of U.P Minor Mineral (Concession) Rule, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules ') in respect of land measuring 24 Acres of land (479 Nali, 7 Muthi) situated in village Naithana, Pati Chauras, Tehsil Devprayag, District Tehri Garhwal. The lease was for a period of ten years. Supplementary mining lease was granted in favour of respondent No. 1 - M/s Kilkileshwar Mining Company in place of M/s Rajendra Rawat & Co. on 01.06.1994. Another mining lease was initially executed in favour of C.V. Singh & Co. proprietor Shri Chandra Beer Singh on 16 -05 -1987 in respect of 24.4 Acres land (488 Nali, 2 Muthi ) situated in village Rani Hat, Patti Chauras, Tehsil Devprayag, Pargana Kirti Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal, which was also for a period of ten years. Supplementary lease deed was executed on 21 -06 -1994 in favour of Shri Satye Singh Rana son of Shri Matbar Singh Rana and Smt. Sushila Devi in place of C.V. Singh & Co. The lease period of both the supplementary lease deeds was fifteen years. Both the lease deeds of respondents Nos. 1&2 were renewed for a period of 10 years on 21 -07 -2000 & on 01 -08 -2000 respectively.

(3.) AFTER the disposal of the writ petition the respondent No. 1 made representation before the appellant No. 2 with a prayer to recall the order dated 25 -01 -2001 in the light of the judgment dated 28 -03 -2001 passed by this Court. The appellant No. 2 instead of recalling the order dated 25 -01 -2001, stopped the respondents from carrying on mining operation work after 07 -05 -2002, though according to them the mining lease deed was initially renewed upto 15 -05 -2002. The appellant No. 2 also passed an order on 04 -10 -2002 rejecting the application of the respondent Nos. 1&2 declining to interfere with the order passed by him earlier on 25 -01 -2001. The order dated 04 -10 -2002 was challenged before the Commissioner in Appeal No. 7/2002 -03, which was allowed vide order dated 03 -06 -2003. The respondent No. 1 made a representation on 05 -06 -2003 to the appellant No. 2 for restoring the mining lease and also not to interfere in the mining operation. But when nothing was done, the respondents filed a Writ Petition No. 777 (M/B) of 2003 before this Court for a direction to appellant No. 2 to allow them to carry on mining operation work. On 09 -10 -2003 Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Writ Petition in the following manner: