BABOO RAM NISHAD Vs. DISTRICT OFFICER/COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the notice dated. 12.5.97 issued by the District Magistrate, Hamirpur for grant of mining permit.

(2.) SHRI Mukesh Prasad learned Counsel for the Petitioner has assailed the notice on the ground that the same does not mention the plot numbers and being vague, it is liable to be quashed. The notice no doubt does not mention the plot number but the boundary and the description of the area for which the mining permit is to be issued has been mentioned. Rule 72 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules provides that if any area which was held under a mining lease or reserved under Section 17A of the Act, becomes available for regrant, the District Magistrate shall notify the availability of the area through a notice inviting applications, giving description of such area and a copy of such notice shall be displayed on the notice board of his office and shall also be sent to the Tehsildar of such area and the Director. It may be pointed out that Rule 72 only provides for giving description of the area and not for giving plot numbers. This provision is contained in Chapter II of the Rules. Rule 12 lays down that the period for which the mining lease may be granted shall not exceed ten years. The mining leases are normally not granted for a period which may be less than a year. The impugned notice has been issued for granting permit under Chapter VI and Rule 51 provides that no mining permit shall be granted for a period of more than six months. The impugned notice shows that the applications have been invited for grant of mining permit for a period of three months. In case of mining permit, there is a sense of urgency as the same is granted for a short period. In fact the provisions of Rule 72 strictly do not apply to a case of mining permit. Therefore, the Petitioners cannot rely on the aforesaid provision to contend that the notice is illegal.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel has also submitted that clear 7 days notice was not given as the same was pasted on the Notice Board on 14.5.97. The learned standing counsel has produced the original record which shows that notice was in fact pasted on 12.5.97. That apart, the record of the case shows that the writ petition was filed before the Addl. Registrar on 16.5.97. The Petitioner must have taken sometime to undertake the journey from Hamirpur to Allahabad and the preparation of the writ petition too would have taken time. It is, therefore, obvious that the Petitioner got knowledge of the notice soon after the same had been published. This notice shows that the contention of the Petitioner that he did not get 7 days notice as held in the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 11683 of 1996 Gopi Nishad v. District Magistrate cannot be accepted.