RAGHU NATH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PALOK Basu, J. Raghunath petitioner claims through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that since he is entitled to the right to excavate the area sanctioned -under the order of the District Magistrate, Jalaun dated 1-12-1995, a mandamus should issue commanding the respondents to execute the lease deed and issue Form MM 11 and restrain them from interfering with petitioner's mining activities in the demised area.

(2.) WHEN the writ petition was filed on 16-4-1996 a counter affidavit was called which has been filed to which a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. Looking at the urgency involved and as jointly requested by the parties. the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage. Shri B. N. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri K. S. Kushwaha, Standing Counsel on behalf of the opposite parties have been heard at length and the entire material has been perused.

(3.) THE short question to be decided in the instant case, therefore, is whether the petitioner's allegations have to be interpreted as if he gets the benefit of the "ex planation" added to Rule 9-A or that on the facts of the present case the Explanation to Rule 9-A is not attracted.