VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINEET Saran, J. Heard Sri S. P. Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Prakash Padia, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 4. Pleadings between the contesting parties have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

(2.) THE petitioner claims that he had filed an application on 13- 2-2001 for grant of mining lease of Plots No. 485 and 486. However, after considering the applications of all the applicants, the lease of plot No. 485 was granted on 19-6-2001 in favour of respondent No. 4-Ram Jaishree. THE said order granting mining lease in favour of respondent No. 4 was challenged in appeal by the petitioner and one other applicant Bharat Lal. THE appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 28-5-2002. However, by the same order, the appeal filed by the other applicant Bharat Lal was allowed. Challenging the order passed in appeal of the said Bharat Lal, the respondent No. 4-Ram Jaishree filed a revision under Rule 78 of the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, which was dismissed by the State Government on 18-9-2002. Challenging the said order, the respondent No. 4, Ram Jaishree filed Writ Petition No. 41124 of 2002, which was allowed by this Court on 31-3-2003 and the claim of Bharat Lal for renewal of lease for mining of plot No. 485 was not accepted and the lease granted on 19-6-2001 in favour of respondent No. 4 was found to be legal and justified. THE said Bharat Lal thereafter challenged the judgment and order dated 31-3-2003 before the Apex Court in a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 10574 of 2003, which was dismissed on 19-6-2003. Thus, the matter with regard to grant of mining lease of Plot No. 485 became final.

(3.) THE only justification for having filed an application for plots No. 485 and 486 on 13-2-2001 has been given in paragraph 10 of the rejoinder affidavit. In the said paragraph, it has been stated that a notification was issued by the District Magistrate on 5-2-2001. No mention of any such notification has been made in the writ petition and only reference of the same is in the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 4. A perusal of the said notification also does not indicate that application for grant of mining lease of Plot No. 486 had been invited by the said notification.