JUMMA RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.8.2005 passed by respondent no.3, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Further prayers are to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner in the light of Rule 9 (2) and (3) of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules 1963 and to issue a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent no.4 from operating the lease granted to him-vide its order dated 29.8.2005.

(2.) The facts arising out of the writ petition are that the petitioner was holding a mining lease of Bhattipur Majra in district- Muzaffarnagar for excavation of sand from 10.12.1998 to 9.12.2004. A procedure has been prescribed under the rules wherein the application has to be filled in form MM-1 before respondent no.3 which is to be considered by the respondents in terms of Rules 7,8,9,10,11,12 and 13. The application is to be made accompanying the relevant documents specified in Rule 6. Rule 6 (2) which is relevant for the purpose of the present controversy is being quoted below:

(3.) A notification was issued by respondent no.3 inviting the applications for mining lease dated 24.1.2005. It was mentioned in the said notification that the applications will be received between 25.2.2005 and 4.3.2005. Pursuant to the aforesaid notification the petitioner submitted an application on 25.2.2005 accordingly accompanied by the relevant documents mentioned in the rules. It is evident from the record that total 24 applications were received by respondent no.3 with regard to grant of lease over the property in question. One of the aggrieved applicants namely Jai Pal Singh approached the Lucknow Bench of this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No. 3413 (M/S) of 2005 on the ground that respondent no.3 is acting on extraneous considerations and is interested to grant lease in favour of respondent no.4. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of finally whereby this Hon'ble Court has laid down the principles on which the mining lease is to be granted by respondent no.3. The order passed by the High Court was an exparte order; therefore, the respondent no.4 challenged the same before the Apex Court. Leave was granted and vide order dated 22.7.2005, the Apex Court allowed the appeal and modified the judgment passed by the Lucknow Bench. The petitioner has also approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.46418 of 2005 which was disposed of finally on 29.6.2005 directing respondent no.3 to take the appropriate decision according to law.