KAMAL KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Mukesh Prasad, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Archana Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing respondents-State.

(2.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the District Magistrate Prayagraj dated 21.06.2019, copy of which is appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. A further prayer was also made to issue a mandamus directing the respondents to adjust the security amount deposited by the petitioner and to refund the balance amount with interest after adjusting royalty on quantity of minerals excavated by the petitioner.

(3.) Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that as per New Government Policy-2017, a Government order for settlement of lease under Chapter-IV by e-tender/e-auction dated 14.8.2017 was issued and the Uttar Pradesh Miner Minerals (Concession) (43 amendment) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Amended Rules, 2017") framed thereunder. Mining leases were to be granted as per the procedure prescribed under the statutory Rules and the Government Order dated 14.8.2017. In pursuance of the same, a notice dated 7.9.2017 was issued by the District Magistrate, Prayagraj for settlement of mining leases of sand and morrum under the Amended Rules, 2017 in the District Prayagraj for several mining blocks by e-tendering.