KAMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has come up with the following prayers; (i) to quash the order dated 3-3-98 passed by the District Magistrate, Agra, as contained in Annexure 5, bearing No. 317/Khanij dated 3/03/1998, (ii) the respondents be restrained from not interfering with the mining operation of the petitioner in relation to an area measuring 84.387 acres of Gata No. 26 in village Chiknipur, Tahsil Bah, distrist Agra.

(2.) The portrayal of the relevant facts are in a narrow compass:-A lease for three years of the aforementioned land was granted by the mining authorities on 6/01/1995 in terms of the orders passed by the Addl. District Magistrate as contained in Annexure 1. The said lease was to expire on 5/01/1998. Before the expiry of his lease the petitioner filed an application for renewal on 5/07/1997, as contained in Annexure 3. However, the apex Court, through a judgment dated 12/12/1996 in, Godavarman Thirumul- pad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267 : (AIR 1997 SC 1228), considered the question of felling of the trees of the forest and issued directions inter alia to stop mining operation in an area where the forest is situate. Yet in view of the operation of the law as contained in the Mining Rules the renewal prayed for by the petitioner stood automatically granted and he proceeded to deposit Rs. 62540.00 vide the Chalan, as contained in Annexure-4.

(3.) According to Mr. Negi learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition, instead of allowing the petitioner to continue the mining operations over the area aforementioned, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court. The authority proceeded to pass the impugned order. In passing the order restraining the petitioner from proceeding further with the mining operations, it violated the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to prove that the mining area under his lease was not within the forest area to which direction of the Apex Court did not apply. Alternatively, he submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner was allowed to operate mining operations for about two months period, it would be in the interest of justice to command the respondents to refund back proportionate amount out of the amount deposited for six months period.