ACHCHEY LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Shri Sanjai Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) PETITIONER was granted lease under Chapter II of the U.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) for excavation of minor mineral on 27.07.2006 for a period of three years. Before expiry of the period of lease, petitioner made an application dated 27.01.2009 for renewal of the same. Renewal application was being processed and the petitioner was required to comply with certain more requirements, which is alleged to have been done. However, still when the renewal application was not decided, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 37848 of 2010, which was disposed of vide order dated 03.07.2010 by making following observation. "A perusal of the entire record makes it clear that the petitioner was granted mining lease for three years. He applied for renewal of the lease and his case has been recommended by the District Magistrate to the Government and the last letter in this regard is dated 14.04.2010. Since the representation has to be decided by the respondents, this Court directs that the decision shall be taken by the respondent no. 1 upon recommendation letter of the District Magistrate preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."

(3.) STILL when no decision was taken, petitioner filed Contempt Application No. 4680 of 2010, which was also disposed of vide order dated 01.10.2010 granting some further time to respondents to carry out the order passed by the writ Court. Petitioner again filed a Contempt Application No. 5695 of 2010, in which counter affidavit was filed by the respondents alleging that the order passed by the writ court was complied on 19.01.2011 and the lease was renewed for three years, subject to the payment of royalty dues. Petitioner alleges that thereafter a letter dated 05.02.2011 was received from the office of the District Magistrate regarding payment of additional royalty to the tune of Rs.14,50,140/ -. The demand of royalty was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition, which was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal before the Commissioner under Section 77 of the Rules. Appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner is alleged to have been allowed quashing the demand made vide letter dated 19.02.2011 with the direction to recalculate the royalty and to renew the lease. Thereafter, vide letter dated 30th December, 2011, the Collector required the petitioner to obtain environmental clearance. Petitioner applied for the same before the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, U.P. and environmental clearance was issued on 10.12.2012. Thereafter, petitioner again approached the Collector by making another application dated 13.12.2012 along with environmental clearance certificate. The District Magistrate put a condition to deposit a sum of Rs.14,23,707/ - before issuing the lease deed. Another notice/letter dated 09.07.2013 was issued to the petitioner requiring him to pay 24% interest on the dues from August, 2009 up to April, 2013 amounting to Rs.12,71,626/ - before the lease could be granted to him.