RAM NARESH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned auction notice dated 17-8-93, annexure-1 to the petition by virtue of which a fresh auction of Khand No. 11, Kamiyari Lohra Ora, district Banda has to take place for the period starting from 1-10-93 to 30-9-94. Earlier the respondents for the same area issued notice dated 30-12-92 for auction and the same was challenged by means of the writ petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3305 of 1993) filed by a private party and on 29-1-93 this Court passed interim order that if any bid is made on 31-1-93 in pursuance of the said auction, the same shall not be finalised. However, later, the said writ petition was dismissed on 23-3-93. It is thereafter this auction which was held on 31-1-93 in which the petitioner participated and his bid was found to be the highest and was also accepted by respondent no. 3. THEreafter the petitioner deposited the requisite amount according to teems and conditions laid down in the said auction notice. After dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition as aforesaid, on 23-3-93, respondent no. 3 issued notice on 25-3-93 to the petitioner indicating therein that the District Magistrate had accepted petitioner's bid and asked him to submit agreement papers within seven days. However, some delay is alleged but it is said that the said lease deed was executed on 10-5-93. It is on these facts the petitioner contends that the total period of one year which was to be completed has the original tender notice for the year in question and what is also provided in the rules has been curtailed by the respondents illegally, hence he seeks quashing of the aforesaid auction notice. THE contention of the petitioner is that under the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 by virtue of proviso to Rule 23 (2) read with Rule 29 it is mandatory for the respondents to execute the lease in favour, of the petitioner for a period of one year. THE curtailment of any period less than one year would be hit by the aforesaid, provisions and thus would be illegal.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY the present writ petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.