RAMDHANI JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was granted a mining lease after approval of the state Government on 20-5-2003. The lease deed was executed for a period of three years. The petitioner moved an application for cancellation of the lease on 8-11 -2004. The District Magistrate issued a notice for recovery of four month's royalty and for forfeiture of the security amount. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner by an order dated 12-5-2006 set aside the order of the District Magistrate and directed the petitioner to file a representation and the district Magistrate was directed to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner. In consequence of the order of the Commissioner, the District Magistrate decided the matter afresh and passed the impugned order forfeiting security and directing the petitioner to pay royalty for the third semester 2004-05 (September ). The order of the District Magistrate has been challenged by the petitioner.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Rule 58 of U. P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963, no order for forfeiture of security furnished by the petitioner can be passed and that the respondents are not entitled to royalty because the petitioner has not done mining work after September 2004 and has rather submitted an application for cancellation/ surrender of the mining lease. A preliminary objection has been raised regarding the maintainability of this petition as an appeal under Rule 11 of U. P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 lies before the Appellate Authority, Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the remedy of appeal is not an efficacious remedy. On the other hand, learned standing counsel submitted that the remedy of appeal is quite efficacious and that the appellate authority has also the power to grant stay during the pendency of the appeal.

(3.) WE have considered the preliminary objection and in our opinion the preliminary objection has merit. Rule 77 of the U. P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules is quoted below;