SARVSHRI SATYSHEEL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. B.P.Nautiyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jayavardhan Kandpal, Advocate, for the petitioners and Mr. K. C. Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.12.1996 whereby the State Government in exercise of power under Rule 78 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (from hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), as presently applicable in the State of Uttarakhand, has cancelled the mining lease of the petitioners.

(3.) THE contention of petitioners is that they are conducting mining in the forest area. Moreover, under rule 78 of the Rules the State Government can pass order stopping the implementation of the order only with regard to order passed by the District Officer Committee. In that circumstances the last order can only be passed by District Officer Committee. However, in the present case, the order which has been set aside by the State Government (while exercising its power under Rule 78 of the Rules) has not been passed by any other authorities but only by the District Officer Committee. This contention of the petitioners is absolutely misconceived for the following reason: