ABDUL MALIK Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Involving a common question, these three petitions, are filed by contractors carrying on mining operation in forest area, seeking a common relief that Government Order dated 10-9-1993 (Annexure-'5' to the writ petition of Abdul Malik) be quashed. The petitioners also seek quashing of order dated 28-9-1993 filed by the U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Lucknow (Annexure-'1' to the writ petition of Vijayant Jaiswal) and the minutes of the meeting taking decision in favour of various Corporations and rejecting the applications of the petitioners.

(2.) Abdul Malik, Vijayant Jaiswal and Gurdeep Singh (petitioners) made applications 3-8-1993 to carry on mining operation in different areas. Abdul Malik applied for Gola Plot No. 4 and Gola Plot No. 5 Vijayant Jaiswal applied for lower Kosi area, and Gurdeep Singh applied for Gola Plot No. 1 inter alia. For Gola Plot No. 4 the U.P. Forest Corporation completed its application on 8-9-1993 and for Gola Plot No. 5, the U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation made an application on 23-8-1993. For lower Kosi area, the U.P. Forest Corporation made an application on 7/8-9-1993 and for Gola Plot No. 1, the Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd., Nainital, submitted an application on 20-8-1993. Whereas the applications of the petitioners were rejected, the applications made by these Corporations on later dates were accepted by virtue of impugned G.O. dated 10-9-1993, which states that for winning minor minerals from the river beds situated in the forest areas of the district Nainital, preference will be given to such Corporations of the U. P. Government which are engaged in mining operations. The G.O. purported to have been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 9(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Miner Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (for brevity's sake 'the Rules'), which have been framed in exercise of the rule making power conferred by Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act').

(3.) The contention of the petitioners is that the impugned G.O. is arbitrary and wholly invalid, as no preference can be given to a class, either it be a Corporation of the State of U.P. or any other entity, under sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules. It is, further, contended by them that the applications of the aforesaid Corporations though were submitted later i.e., after 3-8-1993 when the petitioners submitted their applications, could not have been accepted on account of any preference being created in favour of such Corporations by the impugned G.O.