KALPANA KARWARIYA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question here for our determination is as to whether the security money which a miner deposits at the time of grant of lease under the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the "1963 Rules") could be forfeited when a lease is determined for the non-payment of royalty, rent or other dues. In the instant case, the petitioner had applied by means of e-tendering when it was advertised that the lease would be settled on the highest bidder for the Yamuna River Khand no. 16/2 and 16/3 measuring 20.23 acres in Village Mahewa, Tehsil Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi. The availability of mineral was given out as 4,00,000 cubic meters per year. The lease was to be given for a period of five years. The petitioner who applied by e-tendering was found to be the highest bidder and was given a lease of five years commencing on 22/2/2018 and ending on 21/2/2023. The petitioner before the grant of lease had deposited Rs.1,74,00,000.00 as security and had also deposited Rs.1,74,00,000.00 as the first instalment. As per the agreement in the first year of the mining operation, the petitioner had to deposit four instalments of Rs.1,74,00,000.00. In the second year thereafter, he had to deposit instalments of Rs.1,91,40,000.00 in four equal instalments. After the petitioner commenced with his work, he subsequently discovered that the mineral available was not of proper standard and that the work of excavation from the mines, which he had taken on lease, was not a profitable venture. As a consequence, therefore, on 15/10/2018 the petitioner applied online to the District Magistrate, Kaushambi requesting him to get the mining area of the petitioner surveyed for assessing as to whether the quantity of mineral as was earlier given out was there or not and as to whether the minerals were mixed with mud. This application was followed by another application dtd. 16/10/2018 and by this application, in fact, the petitioner prayed that the lease be determined on account of the mineral not being available in the mining area. The Mines Inspector, Kaushambi on 28/11/2018 upon a query being made by the District Magistrate as to whether a re-assessment could be made, wrote to the District Magistrate that there was no provision for re-assessing as to whether minerals were available or not in the mining area which was given out to the petitioner. It is the averment in the writ petition by the petitioner that even though the petitioner had not done any mining after he had given a notice on 15/10/2018, on 4/1/2019 a notice was given to the petitioner to deposit his fourth instalment of the first year. It may be stated that after the petitioner had got the lease in his favour on 22/2/2018, he had deposited the second quarterly instalment on 19/4/2018 and the third instalment on 13/7/2018 by treasury challans. When the petitioner received the notice dtd. 4/1/2019, he objected to the demand made by the District Magistrate and on 30/1/2019 he objected in writing that there was no mineral available and mining was not possible and that the amounts which the petitioner had deposited earlier be also refunded to him. Even before, the petitioner's objection could be dealt with, the time to deposit the first instalment of the second year had arrived and, therefore, on 30/3/2019 the petitioner deposited Rs.1,91,40,000.00. This the petitioner had deposited after the lease deed was determined by the order dtd. 25/3/2019.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that despite the fact that the petitioner had deposited the security, the two instalments of the first year and the first instalment of the second year, the District Magistrate demanded from the petitioner the fourth instalment of the first year and also the first instalment of the second year.

(3.) The petitioner approached the High Court against the demand but he was relegated to the filing of an appeal. The Appellate Court thereafter on 16/7/2021 rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Resultantly, the petitioner filed a Revision before the State Government under Rules 78 of 1963 Rules and when the Revisional Court dismissed the Revision on 20/9/2021, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.