RAJ KUMAR CHUDHARY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Sri Dev Brat Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned standing counsel appears for the State respondents.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by order of the State Government by which it has rejected the petitioner's application for renewal of mining lease of sand (minor mineral) in respect of plot No. 1910 M, area 10 acres in Lot No. II. The area was allotted to the petitioner, and mining lease was executed in 2001. The lease period came to an end in the year 2003, on which applications were invited. The petitioner claimed for renewal under Rule 6-A of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules 1963, and alleges that since he has not breached any of the conditions or provisions of lease, he was entitled for renewal of the lease in accordance with law.

(3.) It is submitted that petitioner' application was forwarded by the District Magistrate, with his recommendation dated 31.1.2007, to the State Government. The State Government had earlier approved the renewal but that on account of elections to the State Legislative Assembly, and change of Government of the State, the opinion in renewal of mining lease was changed. The State Government is now of the opinion that since the petitioner was granted lease in the year 2001, in pursuance to the preferential rights given to him, as he belongs to 'Mallah' caste, under Rule 9-A, and which preferential rights to the complete exclusion of persons belonging to other castes have been declared as ultra vires by Full Bench of the Court in Ram Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and another (in writ petition No. 256 (M/B) of 1997, decided on 27.03.2001), and Rule 9-A has since been deleted from the Statute, the renewal of lease in favour of the petitioner cannot be considered.