DARBAN SINGH DANGI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was granted a mining lease for a period of 20 years under Chapter IV of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') over an area of 27.27 hectares to mine soap stone from the land situate at Rie Agar in Pargana Didihat, District Pithoragarh in the State of Uttarakhand. On 7th June, 2003, the Petitioner applied for the renewal of the lease under Rule 24A of the Rules on a reduced area of 5 hectares. The renewal application was rejected by the authority by an order of 26th June, 2004 indicating that the land owners are protesting against the renewal of the land and that an Enquiry Committee was set up which made a spot inspection and found that the mining had been done in an unscientific manner without considering the impact which it would have on the environment and that the passage for the villagers had been damaged and that the conditions of the lease had not been complied with.

(2.) The Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed Writ Petition No. 253 of 2004 which was dismissed by an order of 25th August, 2006 on the ground of alternative remedy directing the Petitioner to file a revision under Rule 54 of the Rules. Accordingly, the Petitioner filed a revision, which was allowed by an order of 29th February, 2008 on the short ground that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the Petitioner before passing the impugned order. Upon remand, the Petitioner was directed to submit various information which he did and, various dates were fixed for hearing but no orders were passed which led the Petitioner to file Writ Petition No. 2203 of 2009. This petition was disposed of by an order of 10th March, 2010 directing the authority to decide the matter within eight weeks. It is alleged that in spite of the direction, the matter was not decided and eventually, the Petitioner had to file a contempt application and during the pendency of the contempt application, the application of the Petitioner for renewal of the lease was rejected by an order on 27th August, 2010. The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Heard Sri Paresh Tripathi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, the learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondents.