RAGHUNATH DUBEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are seven in number, and the respondent no.5 are co-sharers of plot no.454 area 0.5190 hectare; plot no.460 area 0.0760 hectare; plot no.461-Ka area 0.9360 hectare and plot no.461-kha area 0.4020 hectare. Out of the total area of these four plots which exceeded 1.1 hectare, an area of 1.100 hectare was found, after inspection, fit for mining of Situ Rock (Dolostone) and it was decided by the District Magistrate to invite bids by way of e-tender for mining of the minerals found in the four plots which were situated in village Billi Markundi, Pargana Agori, Tehsil Obra, District Sonbhadra.

(2.) Before the e-tender took place to get the highest bid for the mineral available, the petitioners and the respondent no.5 had given their consent to the District Mining Officer, Sonbhadra that they were ready and willing to get the minerals excavated from their private land as per Rule 23(2)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"). Rule 23(2)(d) of the Rules is being reproduced here as under :-

(3.) After the land owners had given their consent for excavation of the minerals from the four plots which were in their ownership, they had waited for the tenders to be made public and when it was found that the highest bidder i.e. the respondent no.4 had given a tender for Rs.400.00 per cubic meters then the petitioners and the respondent no.5 were put to notice on 19/8/2023 by the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra as per the proviso to Rule 23(2)(d) as to whether they were ready to take the mining rights at a rate higher than Rs.400.00 per cubic meters. In response to the notice dtd. 19/8/2023, the petitioners submitted their consent for taking the lease and for doing the mining work on the plots in question at the rate of Rs.401.00 per cubic meters. This meant that the petitioners had offered that the lease be finally executed in their favour at a rate which was Re.1/- higher than the rate which was offered by the highest bidder. However, the respondent no.5, who was also a co-sharer along with the seven petitioners, backed out and he did not give any rate for the minerals which were to be mined from the plots in question. Resultantly thereof, the District Magistrate on 4/9/2023 approved the lease in favour of respondent no.4-M/s. Mahadev Mining and passed the impugned order on 4/9/2023, which is under challenge in this writ petition.