KANHAIYA LAL MALLAH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OM Prakash, J. The short question for consideration in this writ petition is whether availability of the area for grant of lease in respect of minor minerals under the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession ). Rules, 1963 (briefly, the Rules) was validly notified by impugned notice, dated 24-9-1994 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) as envisaged by sub-rule (1) of Rule 72, inserted in the Rules by the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) (Twentieth Amendment) Rules, 1994, published in Gazette, dated August 27, 1994.

(2.) THE impugned notice states that a declaration under Rule 24 of the Rules in respect of plain sand/moram available in the bed of rivers-Bejan/tbns-situate in district Allahabad, was made and published in the Gazette, dated 27-9-1994 and as per that declaration the aforesaid area would become available for granting lease with effect from October 1, 1994 under Chapter II of the Rules.

(3.) THE submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 72 (1) does not make distinction between two types of applicants- (i) those who want to apply for grant of lease under Chapter II upon the expiry of an earlier lease granted under that Chapter, or upon the expiry of a lease envisaged by Rule 23 under Chapter IV, and (ii) those who want to apply in respect of an area which is denotified by a declaration, made under Rule 24. His submission in short, is that Rule 72 (1) refers to a mining lease and that a lease either granted under Chapter II upon the (sic) expiry of an existing lease or a lease granted upon the expiry of a lease, envisage by Chapter IV or a lease granted in respect of an area for which a declaration is made under Rule 24, are all mining lease and there is no difference between them except that they are granted under different modes. It is, therefore, urged that thirty ' days notice is uniformly required under Rule 72 (1) for ail types of such lease.