This was questioned by respondents 4 and 5 by way of a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad.
7 lakhs per year.
The Central Government came to the companyclusion that the State Government did number appear to take a firm stand on the questions at issue.
The period for which the mining lease was to be granted was one year and in the alternative for three years.
1,10,000/ per year and were the highest bidders.
All that the Central Government did was to direct the grant of lease for a period of three years instead of one year for which the petitioner had obtained an interim lease on the same terms as the respondents had obtained the interim lease for one year, that is, at the rate of Rs.
They companytended that the lease ought to have been far a period of three years from May 18, 1983, the date of the grant of lease pursuant to the order of the Central Government.
The High Court of Allahabad accepted the companytentions of respondents 4 and 5 and allowed the writ petition.
The present appeals have been filed by the State Government and by Jalkishan Mallah Matseyajeev Saha kari Samiti, a companyperative society, who claims to be anxious to engage itself in the work of mining sand and who ought to implead itself as a party in the High Court offering to take the mining lease for Rs.
The Central Government was of the view that there should be some finality attached to the terms and companyditions as well as the duration of the lease.
On January 7, 1983, the Central Government passed orders in the revision petition filed by the fifth respondent.
3,10,000/ per year.
The one year is stated to have expired on September 30, 1982.
This auction was held on March 8, 1982.
Apparently the sand year if such an expression may be used expires on September 30 every year.
3,10,000/ for one year, should be allowed to work the lease for three years instead of one year provided he agreed to work the lease for Rs.
Once again the 5th respondent was the highest bidder with a bid of Rs.
Bidders were required to offer bids for grant of lease for both the periods in the alternative, The 4th and 5th respondents offered a bid of Rs.
Meanwhile, as the litigation appeared to be prolonged, by way of an interim arrangement, the State Government directed an auction to be held for a period of one year only.
3,10,000/ .
There was companysequent litigation.
Shri Kacker, learned Counsel for the Mallah Matseyajeevi Sahakari Samiti and Shri Anil Dev Singh, learned companyncil for the State Government, argued before us that the High Court was wrong in its interpretation of the order of the Central Government.
The matter came to the Supreme Court and the companyrt gave a direction that the respondents might approach the Central Government in revision.
1 of river Yamuna was auctioned by the Collector, Allahabad on November 13, 1981.
The respondents went before the Central Government in revision.
Pursuant to the order of the Central Government, the State Government by its order dated May 18, 1983 granted the lease for a period of three years 1981 82, 1982 83 and 1983 84.
The State Government did number accept the bid.
The Central Government thought that in the particular case the revision petitioner, who had in the interim period taken the lease for an amount of Rs.
He was granted a lease for one year.
Chinnappa Reddy, J. The right to excavate sand from Zone No.
