KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was granted a mining lease for a period of three years commencing from 15th February, 2007 till 14th February, 2010. It transpires that an ex-parte inspection was carried out at the site between 06th January, 2008 to 09th January, 2008 and an inspection report was filed on 14th January, 2008 indicating therein that Form MM-11 was issued from 15th February, 2007 to 07th January, 2008 for transportation of 7600 cubic meters of sand, but it transpires that the petitioner had excavated 26,700 cubic meters, and therefore, there has been an excess mining of 19,100 cubic meters. The report suggested that for this excess mining, royalty of Rs. 4,39,300/- becomes payable.

(2.) Based on this report, the District Magistrate issued an order dated 28th January, 2008 directing the petitioner to immediately stop the mining operations. The notice indicated that the value of excess mining of 19,100 cubic meters was Rs. 26,35,800/-, which was in violation of Rule 70 and 35 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 and that the mining was also done outside the prescribed area. Subsequently, an amended notice dated 19th February, 2008 was issued to show cause as to why the royalty and price of mining should not be charged for excess mining of 19,100 cubic meters of land in violation of Rule 70 and 35 of the Rules and for not demarcating the property as per the lease deed.

(3.) The petitioner denied the allegation in his reply and further contended that no inspection was made in the presence of the petitioner and requested that a fresh inspection be carried out in his presence.