GOPAL PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these writ petitions a common question of law regarding applicability of Rule 9-A of The U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules ,1963 (the Rules) is involved, hence we have heard both of them together and now we are deciding them by a common judgment.

(2.) The facts relevant for disposal of both these writ petitions are that The U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules,1963 were amended by the 20th Amendment Rules on 7.8.1994 and Rule 9-A was added which provides for preference to certain class of persons in the matter of grant of mining leases. This amendment was challenged in a writ petition and was declared ultra-vires by Full bench decision of this Court in the case of 'Ram Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and another' reported in (2001) 1 SAC page 475. A Special Leave Petition was filed against this order before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Later on this appeal was disposed of on 9.9.2002 on the under taking given by the State Government that no preference will be given to any one in granting the mining leases. It is relevant to point out that some leases had already been granted in pursuance of the 20th Amendment dated 7.8.1994. These leases were permitted to complete their terms. In these leases there was also a provision for renewal of the lease. Some persons to whom the leases had been granted applied for renewal of the leases . Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 3501 of 2004 has been filed more or less for restraining the grant of renewal of the leases. A notice was issued on 19.1.2001 advertising Lot no. 2 Khand No. 871 village Piper Deeh Tehsil Dudhi District Sonbhadra for grant of mining lease. The mining lease was granted to Kirshna Kumar, the petitioner in W.P. no. 72493 of 2005 on 27.2.2001. This lease itself was for three years . Krishna Kumar applied for renewal of the lease on 15.9.2003. This lease was renewed for a further period of three years on 10.7.2005. The lease deed was also executed on 18.7.2005. This was cancelled on 14.10.2005 without giving any opportunity of hearing to Krishna Kumar. Hence, he has filed Writ Petition no. 72493 of 2005. After the lease of Krishna Kumar had been renewed on 10.7.2005 one Kuldeep Prasad Yadav had filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 54636 of 2005 challenging this renewal. In this writ petition interim order was granted on 10.8.2005 staying operation of the renewal in favour of Krishna Kumar. In this writ petition counter and rejoinder affidavits were exchanged. However, after cancellation of the renewal by the District Magistrate on 14.10.2005 this writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 20.10.2005.

(3.) We have heard Sri W.H. Khan, counsel for Gopal Prasad Gupta, petitioner in Writ Petition no. 3501 of 2004 and Sri Dev Brat Mukerjee, counsel for the person seeking impleadment in this writ petition. We have also heard Sri Dev Brat Mukerjee, counsel for Krishna Kumar, petitioner in Writ Petition no. 72493 of 2005, Sri W.H. Khan, counsel for caveator respondent and the Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and State Officials in both the writ petition. The counsel for Krishna Kumar, petitioner in Writ Petition no.72493 of 2005 submitted that the order of cancellation of the lease deed was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Sri W.H. Khan and the Standing Counsel submitted that though no opportunity has been given to the petitioner yet this lease granted under the provisions of Rule 9-A was rightly cancelled .