RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS group of petitions involves a common issue and, are being decided together. For facility, the facts of Writ Petition No. 165 of 2011 (M/S), Rakesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and Others is being stated hereunder: -

(2.) THE petitioner is the owner of land in khata No. 22, khasra Nos. 6, 7 and 9 measuring 2.915 hectares in village Bhogpur, Tehsil and District Haridwar. The land is adjacent to the river. The petitioner applied for a mining lease on his land. The State Govt. after making due inquiries, granted permission by an order dated 6th May, 2010 to excavate minor minerals from his land in order to make the land agricultural. Based on the said permission, the District Magistrate issued a work order dated 28th May, 2010 on 2 certain terms and conditions. The State Govt. by an order dated 1st September, 2010 cancelled the permission on the ground that a Contempt Application No. 75 of 2010, Maya Dixit v. Sri P.C. Sharma, Principal Secretary / Director (Geology and Mining Unit) and others was pending before the High Court. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the cancellation of the permission, has filed the present writ petition contending that no opportunity of hearing or notice was given by the State Govt. before cancelling the permission. The petitioner further contended that he has a preferential right to excavate the minor minerals from his land and that the lease was granted rightly under Chapter II of the Uttarakhand Minor Mineral (Concession) R.2001 and that R.72 of the Rules contemplated under Chap.8 of the aforesaid Rules has no application. It was further contended that the judgment dated 27th March, 2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 1498 of 2009, Maya Dixit v. State of U.P. and Others was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case nor the contempt proceedings initiated therein had any bearing with the facts of the case. The learned counsel submitted that in any case, the contempt application has been dismissed by the High Court and, consequently, there was no embargo upon State Govt. to recall its order and allow the petitioner to mine the minerals pursuant to the work order given by the District Magistrate.

(3.) AN intervention application in this writ petition was filed by Swaraj Karnwal which was allowed by this Court and he was directed to intervene in the matter and address the court. The Court finds that the said Swaraj Karnwal has also filed a separate Writ Petition No. 898 of 2010 praying for the quashing of the permission granted by the State Govt. and the work order issued by the District Magistrate in favour of Rakesh Kumar, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 165 of 2011 (M/S) and also against the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 who, in similar circumstances, were also granted permission by the State Govt. and work orders were issued in their favour by the District Magistrate. Shri Swaraj Karnwal, in his writ petition, submitted that he is an interested party and was interested in applying for a grant of a mining lease, pursuant to the mining policy of 2001 as amended by the policy of 2002. He was waiting for the issuance of the notification pursuant to which he could apply for the grant of the mining lease but the State Govt. without advertising and without inviting applications from the public has illegally and arbitrarily, in gross violation of the Act and the Rules framed therein, has granted mining permission to the private individuals and, consequently, prayed that the lease executed in their favour should be cancelled.