TEJENDER MALIK Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the Court. The above three Writ Petitions, inter alia, seeking to challenge orders regarding renewal of mining lease have been filed. As similar facts and common questions of law are involved in all-the three Writ Petitions, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36599 of 2004 is being treated as the leading case, and the facts of the said ' Writ Petition are narrated in detail hereunder.

(2.) THE petitioner-Tejender Malik in the said Writ Petition has, inter alia, sought quashing of the orders dated 26.5.2003 (Annexure-11 to the Writ Petition) and 19.6.2003 (Annexure-15 to the Writ Petition) passed by the respondent No. 1-State of U.P. and the orders dated 9.6.2003 (Annexure-13 to the Writ Petition) and 26.6.2003 (Annexure-16 to the Writ Petition) passed by the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, and has further sought quashing of the renewed mining lease deed executed on 8.7.2003 and registered on 13.8.2003 (Annexure-17 to the Writ Petition). Further prayer has been made for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to allow the respondent No. 4-Okhla Sand Supply Company Ltd. to carry out mining operation on the basis of the said renewed lease deed executed on 8.7.2003 and registered on 13.8.2003.

(3.) IT is pointed out in the Writ Petition that during the said period a Government Order No. 5235, dated 5.9.1990 issued under Rule 68 of the 1963 Rules was in operation whereunder the entire mining areas in the State of U.P. were declared under Rule 23(1) of the 1963 Rules for grant of mining lease under Chapter IV by auction and tender.