JAGMOHAN DUTT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While coming to hear the mining mineral matters, three sets of writ petitions came up for discussion. Since some of the counsel were appearing in many of the cases inasmuch as quite a few factual questions were over-lapping, all the writ petitions of three respective sets were heard together. But, in order to facilitate disposal of the respective petitions in the three sets, those shall be decided by separate judgments, one set following the other. In this set of writ petitions, the preliminary question involved is, the validity of the G.O, of the State Government, dated 25.5.1995, wherein it has been made possible to issue a lease in favour of a person who Is found to be the discoverer of a new area, which contains mining minerals, in pursuance of which lease is executable in his favour without publication of any notice.

(2.) Jagmohan Dutt Sharma petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 27945 of 1977 heard along with the Writ Petition No. 14329 of 1990, is aggrieved by a proposed action of the respondents trying to grant mining lease in favour of any person with regard to village Nivada. Tahsil Bagpat, district Meerut without deciding the application of the petitioner dated 5.8.1977. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner has also made the ancillary prayer that the respondents should be asked to decide the question as to who first discovered the mining area, for which, the petitioner made his application dated 5.8.1997.

(3.) It may be mentioned here that this writ petition was filed on 21.8.1997 and during the pendency of the writ petition, wherein no interim order has been passed, admittedly, lease deed has been executed on 22.10.1997 in favour of one Brij Pal Singh, who has made an impleadment application in this case and has filed affidavit as well as counter-affidavit as the contingency required. In paragraph 15 of the supplementary counter-affidavit, it has been stated that: