SANDEEP KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking the following relief:-

(2.) IN nutshell the case of the petitioner is that a storage licence under Rule 3 of the M.P. Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 (in short "Rules of 2006") to store minor mineral (sand) for the period 18.11.2007 to 17.11.2010 was given to him vide order dated 30.11.2007. Pursuant to the said licence petitioner stored 71050 Cu. Mtrs of sand at his stock-yard at village Barhati District Katni in Patwari Halka No. 23 admeasuring 3.8 hectares, which is part of khasra No.80/1, 85 and 86/1. Before the expiry of said storage licence, the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of the storage licence alongwith requisite renewal fee on 09.03.2009. In the meantime the State Government issued gazette notifications dated 08.04.2010 and 20.08.2010 to amend the Rule 3 of Rules of 2006 by restraining any storage of sand within a periphery of 50 kms. from a sand mine and further permitting such storage by the holder of any such mining lease during the period of lease within the periphery of 4 kms. from such mine. According to the petitioner, such amendment caused certain anomalies. Eventually a general circular dated 07.01.2011 has been issued by the State Government to all the Collectors of State to issue transit pass of sand which was stored prior to aforesaid amendment on verification of the mineral stock. Hence, the petitioner was also entitled for the requisite transit pass in regard to sand which he had stored under such licence prior to coming into force the amendment in the aforesaid Rules of 2006.

(3.) THE State of M.P. and private respondent no.4 have filed their separate return. The fourth respondent has refuted the averments made in the petition and specifically prayed that the petitioner is not entitled for renewal of licence nor the transit passes could be issued to him for the sand which he had stored under the licence given to him under the Rules of 2006 because upon own showing of petitioner the licence was valid from 18.11.2007 to 17.11.2010. On filing of the rejoinder by the petitioner, the fourth respondent filed additional return and has averred that during the period of licence which the petitioner was having he simply stored the stock of the sand but it was not taken away from the place of storage. Hence, it has been prayed that the impugned orders have been passed within the four corners of law and there is no merit in this petition and thus it be dismissed.