RAM MILAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) U. P. Singh, J. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 6th December, 1994, contained in Annexure-7a of the writ petition, whereby, the Additional District Magistrate, Mau granted lease in favour of respondents No. 6 to 15, for excavating sand from the river Tons. He has also challenged the order passed by the Special Secretary, Depart ment of Heavy Industries, Government of U. P. , dated 23- 3-1995, whereby, the revision preferred by respondents Nos. 6 to 15, chal lenging the decision of the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, was al lowed.

(2.) WHILE challenging the order dated 6-12-1994, contained in Annexure-7a, whereby, the lease was granted in favour of respondents No. 6 to 15, it was contended that it was a grant of lease only in respect of Tehsil Sadar, District Mau, although, the notice dated 2nd November, 1994 was for the entire district; that it did not specify the area to be allotted; that it did not specify the quantity of the royalty to be paid nor the rate of royalty was constituted; that the order was passed by the Additional District Magistrate, who has no authority to do so and it was, accordingly, without jurisdic tions ; that the order granting lease had not been considered by the Committee, nor was it passed by the Chairman of the Commit tee, and that even if the notice dated 2-11-1994 be treated as valid, the last date for filing applications was 1-12-1994 and a large number of applications were pending from 2-12-1994 to 6-12- 1994, but till that date no meeting was held.

(3.) THE said order of the State Govern ment dated 23-3-1995 has been questioned in this writ petition on the ground that it is contrary to Rule 72 and the said order was passed due to political pressure. It was fur ther contended that since the Collector has now issued another notice on 24th March, 1995 (Annexure-12), for District Mau, in viting applications, therefore, the leases granted in favour of the respondents do not survive.