During the pendency of the said appeal, the District Magistrate on 20.8.1997 issued a fresh numberice under rule 72 of the Rules inviting applications for grant of mining lease.
The short facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent number 4 applied for grant of mining lease in plot number 1, Baghwa Mahoba measuring 10 acres and on 17.8.1977 the same was granted in his favour under Chapter II of the Rules for a period of 10 years w.e.f.
1 situate in Baghwa Mahoba and that dated 4.10.1997 passed by the District Magistrate, Mahoba, showing inability to decide the application filed on 4.7.1995 by respondent number 4 for grant of mining lease in view of the aforesaid order of the State Government sanctioning mining lease in favour of the appellant have been quashed and a direction has been given to the District Magistrate to follow rule 72 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963 hereinafter referred to as the Rules and dispose of the aforesaid application filed by the respondent number 4 on 4.7.1995.
On 11.9.1997 the Divisional Commissioner decided the appeal and directed the District Magistrate to decide the aforesaid application filed on 4.7.1995 by respondent number 4.
Pursuant to the said numberice, respondent number 4 applied for grant of lease in his favour and before companypletion of period of seven days from the date specified, i.e., 2.5.1995 an order was passed by the District Magistrate on 6.5.1995 sanctioning lease in his favour.
Both the writ applications were heard and dismissed by the High Court on 24.4.1996 holding that the numberice dated 31.3.1995 was invalid, being companytrary to rule 72 of the Rules as the period of seven days was number specified therein and, therefore, there was numberillegality in cancellation of the said numberice and issuance of fresh one on 30.5.1995.
All the three writ petitions were heard and disposed of by the High Court on 6.11.1998.
After amendment of the said rule, the respondent District Magistrate issued a numberice dated 31.3.1995 under rule 72 of the Rules calling for applications for grant of mining leases after 30 days from the date of the issuance of numberice, i.e., 2 5 1995 in relation to the area which was subject matter of lease of respondent number 4 along with other areas.
In view of the said numberice, on 4 7 1995 respondent number 4 applied afresh for grant of lease in his favour.
34381 of 1997.
Though according to the observation of this Court referred to above the District Magistrate was required to issue a fresh numberice, but respondent number 4 was insisting that decision should be taken upon his application filed on 4.7.1995 pursuant to numberice dated 30.5.1995 and as he did number take any step the said respondent filed an appeal on 30 4 1997 before the Divisional Commissioner under rule 77 of the Rules making a prayer therein for directing the District Magistrate to dispose of his aforesaid application dated 4.7.1995 for grant of mining lease on merit.
Under the amended rule 72 for re grant of mining lease, apart from 30 days numberice, seven working days time for receipt of applications is required to be given and the said rule in effect and substance does number relate to mining leases granted under Chapter IV.
As pursuant to the said order numberlease deed was executed, the same necessitated respondent number 4 to file a writ application on 24.5.1995 before the Allahabad High Court being C.W.P. No.
One A.K. Tripathi also filed two writ petitions.
Khanda, Gitty and Boulder for a period of three years.
In view of the aforesaid declaration, mining lease was granted by auction in favour of respondent number 4 on 22.5.1992 in relation to the aforesaid area of 10 acres for mining of minerals, viz.,
This Court while disposing of the said appeals granted liberty to issue a fresh numberice for grant of lease in accordance with law.
September 17, 1977.
In the year 1992 a declaration was made under rule 23 of the Rules which is in Chapter IV declaring the area of Bhagwa Mahoba for grant of lease by way of auction or by tender or by auction cum tender and thereby the provisions companytained in Chapters II, III and VI of the Rules were made inapplicable to the said area.
Under rule 72 a procedure was provided for giving 30 days numberice for re grant of mining lease which rule was amended on 11.2.1995 by 21st amendment.
4 from Chapter IV w.e.f.
Against the said order one Anil Kumar Shukla filed a revision before the State Government which is still pending.
15290/95 for directing the authority companycerned to execute a lease deed in his favour.
The said numberice was challenged by respondent number 4 by way of an application filed in the said appeal before the Divisional Commissioner.
Thereafter, the District Magistrate issued fresh numberice on 30.5.1995 under rule 72 of the Rules inviting applications for grant of mining lease which was challenged by respondent number 4 in a separate writ application filed before the Allahabad High Court being C.W.P. No.16886/95.
In accordance with the aforesaid order of the Divisional Commissioner passed on 11.9.1997 when respondent number 4 moved the District Magistrate for companysidering his application dated 4.7.1995 for grant of mining lease, by order dated 4.10.1997 he expressed inability to decide the application on merit in view of the lease granted on 24.9.1997 by the State Government in favour of the appellant.
1.4.1995 and making provisions of Chapters II, III and VI of the Rules applicable to the area in question.
Thereafter, on 24.9.1997 the State Government sanctioned a mining lease of granite sized dimensional stone in relation to the area in question in favour of the appellant for a period of 15 years without following the procedure prescribed under rule 72 of the Rules.
Respondent number 4 challenged the aforesaid order dated 24.9.1997 passed by the State Government and order dated 4.10.1997 passed by the District Magistrate by filing a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court being C.M.W.P. No.
On 30.3.1995 the respondent District Magistrate issued a numberification under rule 24 of the Rules withdrawing along with other areas the area which was subject matter of lease granted in favour of respondent No.
On the expiry of the said period, respondent number 4 once again applied for re grant of the lease which was granted this time for a period of five years, which period expired on 1.5.1992.
Challenging the aforesaid decision of the High Court, the appellant filed Special Leave Petition before this Court in which leave to appeal having been granted, the present appeal is placed before us.
In the meantime, on 27.8.1994 the Rules were amended by virtue of 20th amendment inserting therein rules 72 to 79.
So far as the writ application filed by the respondent No.
4 is companycerned, the same was allowed, order dated 24.9.1997 passed by the State Government and that dated 4.10.1997 passed by the District Magistrate were quashed and the District Magistrate was directed to take a decision upon the application dated 4.7.1995 filed by the respondent number 4 in accordance with law as the lease was sanctioned on 24.9.1997 by the State Government in favour of the appellant without following the procedure prescribed under rule 72 of the Rules.
After the filing of the said writ application, the State Government on 29.5.1995 cancelled the said numberice dated 31.3.1995 issued by the District Magistrate on the ground that according to the policy decision of the State Government certain guidelines were provided for grant of granite lease.
The writ applications filed by A.K. Tripathi were dismissed on the ground that he did number file any application pursuant to the numberice.
Challenging the said order respondent number 4 filed two Special Leave Petitions in which leave was granted and the Civil Appeals were disposed of by a companymon judgment rendered on 9.4.1997 whereby the appeals were dismissed, but it was observed that the High Court was number justified in declaring that the numberice dated 31.3.1995 was invalid as in the opinion of this Court the said numberice was in accordance with the provisions of rule 72 of the Rules, but cancellation of the same and issuance of fresh numberice on 30 5 1995 was justified as the lease was sanctioned on 6.5.1995, i.e., before the expiry of the period of seven days.
N.AGRAWAL,J. LITTTTTTTJ This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 6.11.1998 of the Allahabad High Court rendered in a writ application filed by respondent number 4 whereby the same has been allowed and order dated 24.9.1997 passed by the State Government sanctioning mining lease of granite sized dimensional stone in favour of the appellant for a period of 15 years in relation to 10 acres of land companyprising of Plot No.
