(1.) This is the second writ petition of M/s. Shyam Stone Co., Basically the issue is whether the State-respondents could impose royalty on the petitioner amounting to Rs. 2,36,565.36. The petitioner had applied for a lease for a period of five years in village Billimarkindi, Pargana Agori, Tahsil Robertsganj, district Sonbhadra, for excavation of stones. Whatever rights the petitioner had applied for, the application could only be made under the U. P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963. Earlier the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 31116 of , 1994. M/s Shyam Stone Co. v. District Magistrate, Sonbhadra and others.
(2.) Though the reliefs sought are different than the submissions, the contention of the petitioner in the petition is that the royalty which has been imposed, coupled with the demand of compound interest on it, is not in accordance with the law. The petitioner contends that in similar circumstances, in another writ petition, the High Court had ordered that the pending representation be disposed off and in the interim period the recovery proceedings be stayed. The petitioner gave the reference to the other writ petition and appended a copy of the order along with this petition. It was in these circumstances that the High Court ordered that a decision has to be given by the authority, i.e., to say the Mines Officer, district Sonbhadra, on the pending representation of the petitioner and further recovery of the impugned demand so raised in the impugned notice was to remain stayed. In effect, a writ of mandamus has been issued by the High Court. With this observation, the earlier writ petition of the petitioner had been decided.
(3.) Armed with the order dated 22.9.1994 of the High Court on the earlier writ petition, the petitioner expected the authority, the Mines Officer, Sonbhadra, to pass an order. The Mines Officer, apparently regard being had to the state of the record, could not pass an order as the High Court had directed.