NISHANT TRADERS Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As on 14/8/2017 the State of Uttar Pradesh had taken a decision to grant all leases for minor minerals by way of e-tendering-cum-e-auction, tenders were invited from bidders at large with regard to mining leases of various mining areas of the district of Basti. The petitioner was interested to get the mining lease of the plots situate in village Mahua Kalan, Khand-II having plot nos.757, 770, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 779, 780, 781, 782, 783, 810, 811 and 812 the area of which was 4.249 hectares. Though a certain minimum reserve price was given for price to be offered by the participants in the e-auction, the petitioner made an offer of Rs.557.00 per cubic meter for the mineral which was available. The petitioner being the highest bidder was offered a Letter of Intent on 13/11/2017 stating therein that he was required to deposit immediately within two days the 25% of the royalty of the first year as security money and 25% of the royalty of the first year as the first installment.

(2.) For making the bid the petitioner had deposited Rs.19,33,295.00 as earnest money as was the requirement of the advertisement in pursuance of which the petitioner had applied for participating in the auction. 118972 cubic meters of sand was supposedly available for mining. However, when knowledge dawned on the petitioner that in fact the quantity of mineral as was given out in the advertisement was not present at the site and that the mineral was in agricultural land of various private persons and also that there was a river which would be an impediment in the excavation, the petitioner on 18/1/2018 applied to the Director of Geology and Mining that in view of the problems which the petitioner was facing, appropriate action be taken by him. When despite repeated requests nothing was done from the side of the State, the petitioner filed a Revision before the State Government under Rule 78 of the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the "1963 Rules") and before the Revisional Court a specific prayer was made that the representation of the petitioner for taking action on the application of the petitioner dtd. 18/1/2018 be decided. In effect the Revision was filed with virtually the same prayers as were there in the application dtd. 18/1/2018. During the pendency of the Revision, a direction was issued to the District Magistrate to conduct an inquiry for ascertaining the quantity of mineral over the plot in question and in pursuance of that direction the Revenue Officials submitted a report on 26/2/2019. The petitioner, learned counsel has submitted, was never shown the report which was submitted by the Revenue Authorities on 26/2/2019 but the Revision itself was disposed of on 16/9/2019 basing its order on the report dtd. 26/2/2019. From the order dtd. 16/9/2019, the crux of the report dtd. 26/2/2019 can be found which had stated that the petitioner's allegation that there was no mineral/sand available was wrong. Ultimately the petitioner's application dtd. 18/1/2018 stood rejected. Thereafter on 30/9/19 the petitioner once again represented to the District Magistrate/Collector, Basti that mining was not possible and that the amount of Rs.3,12,00,407.00 which the petitioner had deposited in advance be refunded to him. However, no order was passed on the application but on 23/10/2019, the District Magistrate, Basti gave a notice to the petitioner that in view of the order dtd. 16/9/2019 of the Revisional Court, the petitioner may provide the environmental clearance and get the lease executed otherwise the Letter of Intent dtd. 13/11/2017 would be cancelled; the mine in question would be re-auctioned and all the amounts which the petitioner had deposited would stand forfeited.

(3.) Disturbed by this notice, the petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ-C No.36361 of 2019 (M/s. Nishant Traders vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) with a prayer that the amount which the petitioner had deposited after the issuing of the Letter of Intent be refunded to the petitioner and also that the amount which the petitioner had deposited be not forfeited.