ZUNAID AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these three Writ Petitions identical controversy is involved and as such all these Writ Petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in these cases and the counsel for the parties are agreed that the petitions may be disposed of finally.

(2.) THE petitioners are mining lease holders of Sand on the Yamuna River bed in portions of District-Kaushambl. They were granted mining leases in the year 2006 which are operative for a period of three years i. e. till 2009. There is a condition in the lease deed that they will not conduct mining operations by use of machines except with the permission of the District magistrate. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have not obtained any permission from the District Magistrate. The petitioners are aggrieved by the stoppage of mining operations on the basis of oral orders of the District Magistrate. Other contentions have also been advanced by Shri. S. P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri. Deo prakash Singh, counsel for the petitioners challenging the condition in the lease prohibiting them from using machines without permission of the District Magistrate.

(3.) BEFORE examining the various contentions advanced by Shri. S. P. Singh learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents, it is necessary to refer to the Government orders upon the point which have been issued from time to time.