RAM DAYAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.12.2005, which was issued in pursuance of amended Rule 10 of U. P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1963. Further issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the amended Rule 10 of U. P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1963, as ultra vires, which was incorporated in the Rules by twenty-six amendments. Further issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to renew the mining lease of the petitioner for Lot No. 5 of Aarzi No. 1 of Village Pardrach, Tehsil Robertsganj, district Sonbhadra in pursuance of the order passed by the learned appellate authority dated 16.6.2006.

(2.) THE facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner by means of the present writ petition challenging the legality and validity of Rule 10 of the Rules, 1963, which was amended by (Twenty-Six Amendment) Rules, 2004, vide notice dated 26.12.2005, which was issued under the aforesaid amended Rule by office of respondent No. 2 by which he had consolidated the entire mining plot measuring area about 130 acres for grant of mining lease to a single person of his choice, which is totally unconstitutional and against the ambit and spirit of Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, under which the aforesaid Rules of 1963, was enacted. THE petitioner is engaged in the profession of excavation of minor mineral such as moram and sand, from river of district Sonebhadra and this is the only livelihood of the petitioner. Throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh the excavation of Minor Mineral is governed by U. P. Minor Mineral Concession Rule 1963, which is enacted under Section 15 of the Central Act known as Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. According to Rules, 1963, river bed side mineral such as, sand, moram is also one of the 'Minor Minerals' defined under the aforesaid rule of 1963, as such, the said rule is applicable.

(3.) THE respondents taking the shelter of amended Rule 10 of Rules, 1963, for consolidating the entire mining lot of the village which consist of 130 acres and want to settle with one single person only and the effect of this will be to curtail the right of poor persons, cannot apply and get the mining lease of the aforesaid consolidated lot as the dead-rent of consolidated lot will be thirteen times high than single lot. THE petitioner's lot No. 5 which was given to the petitioner has also been consolidated in the aforesaid impugned notice, as such, in spite of the order of the Commissioner dated 16.6.2006, the petitioner could not get renewed of his mining lease, if it is settled in favour of the respondent No. 4. It has further been submitted by the petitioner that Rule 10 was amended by way of 26 Amendments dated 22.6.2004 by which previous Rule 10 has been amended and power has been given to District Magistrate to grant mining lease for Moram and Sand for more than thirty acres, although regarding grant of mining lease of boulders and gitti were kept same. A bare perusal of the aforesaid amended Rule 10 clearly goes to show that it is a clear violation of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India as due to the aforesaid amended Rule, the District Magistrate can notify the entire mining area of the District after consolidating the same and can grant it to any one single person of his choice and no other poor person who is having an interest to get the mining lease shall be deprived to get the same. It clearly creates monarchy and as such, it is a clear interference and against the well-settled principle of law as the District Magistrate has been authorized by the aforesaid amended Rule to grant mining lease by way of pick and choose policy. Due to the aforesaid amended Rule, a single person can get a mining lease of entire district which is not the ambit and spirit of the Act under which the aforesaid Rule of 1963 is framed shall be frustrated.