(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 22-8- 2005 (Annexure VIII) by which the petitioner's application for renewal of lease dated 14-11-2005 has been rejected and Government Order dated 31-3-2006 (Annexure VII) to the writ petition.
(2.) By order dated 31-3-2006, the application of the petitioner for renewal of lease for mining the minerals from his own land has been refused in compliance of the Government Order dated 22-8-2005. The Government has taken a decision not to grant or renew any lease or licence for extracting/ mining the minerals for the reason that the land owned by the private owners at the bank of the river during the rainy season, the soil of the land in the rainy season recede to river and in that process the area of the land becomes full of river water and the minerals flowing in the river water are dumped over such land and the private owners of the land when get lease for extracting or mining such minerals, they also extract/ mine much excess minerals from the river bed which is in violation of the Uttaranchal Up Khaniz Parihar Niyamavali, 2001 and this process also cause huge loss to the revenue. The Government Order dated 22-8- 2005 aims to seek the object enshrined under Clause (b) of Article 39 of Constitution of India. This Government Order is a law within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution of India as it is a direction not to issue any licence in respect of the land mentioned in the Government Order. The challenge of this Government Order on the ground of violation of Articles 14 and 19 is barred by the provisions of Article 31-C of the Constitution of India as the Government Order gives effect to the public policy contained in Article 39 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) So far as the challenge of the Government Order on the ground of violation of Article 21 is concerned, since Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India is not attracted and Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be applied alone in the facts and circumstances of'this case. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." No doubt that the source of livelihood also has been held to mean life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the series of decisions, but by the Government Order the source of livelihood has not been taken away without the procedure prescribed by law.