http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 8681 of 2002

PETITIONER:

BEG RAJ SINGH

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/12/2002

BENCH:

R.C. LAHOTI & BRIJESH KUMAR

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

2002 Supp(5) SCR 530

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.C. LAHOTI, J. Leave granted.

The State of Uttar Pradesh took a policy decision as evidenced by G.O.

dated 25.5.1995 for remission of the lease of the river bed Yamuna where

sand and moram along with bajri bolder, reta or anyone of them is found in

mixed condition. The policy decision contemplates such areas as are

completely new and have been searched by the applicant himself being leased

out on 'first come first serve' basis. As provided by the G.O. based on the

opinion of Directorate of Geology and Mining, the term of such lease shall

normally be between three to five years.

The appellant applied for one such sand mining lease in accordance with the

policy decision contained in the G.O. The Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar

granted the said lease to the appellant. The lease was executed for a

period of one year w.e.f. 3rd June, 1998. Before the expiry of the term of

the lease, the appellant sought for a renewal for another period of two

years. The Collector granted such extension vide order dated 20.12.2000;

the principal consideration for granting such renewal being that the lease,

as originally executed, should have been for a minimum period of three

years which having not been done and erroneously the lease having been

executed for a period of one year the appellant was entitled to such

extension for two years.

It appears that around the time when the appellant was allowed the

extension of two years, the Government had taken a decision to hold an

auction of the sand mining lease. The respondent No.3, a competitor

aspirant of the appellant preferred a revision before the State Government

against the order of the Collector dated 20.122000. The revision was filed

after expiry of one year and four months from the date of the order of

extension. The State Government condoned the delay in filing the revision

on the ground that the revision was filed within the period of limitation

calculated from the date of the knowledge of the respondent No.3. The issue

as to locus standi was also decided in favour of respondent No.3. The State

Government, vide its order dated 22.4.2002, set aside the order of the

Collector influenced mainly by the consideration that the State Government

having decided to hold an auction of the mining rights, the State

Government was likely to gain higher revenue and therefore it was in public

interest to transfer mining rights by holding an auction.

The appellant preferred a writ petition in the High Court feeling aggrieved

by the order of the State Government. Vide order dated 13.5.2002, the High

Court has dismissed the writ petition. A perusal of the impugned order

shows that in the opinion of the High Court the order of the Collector

granting two years extension of mining rights to the appellant was

justified and the State Government was not justified in interfering and

setting aside the order of the Collector. The High Court agreed that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3

initial lease should have been for a period of three years in which case

there would have been no occasion for litigation. However still, the High

Court denied the relief to the appellant on the ground that auction would

sub-serve public interest by fetching higher royalty to the State

Government and further because the period of three years calculated from

the date of the original grant had in any case come to an end and therefore

no relief could be allowed to the appellant. The appellant has filed this

appeal by special leave.

The only submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that

the appellant has been given a very rough deal by the State Government and

the injustice done to the appellant the High Court has failed to redeem. He

had identified and explored the new mining area and made huge expenditure

in making the mining area approachable and therefore it was the legitimate

expectation of the appellant that he would be entitled to operate the mine

for a minimum period of three years as per the declared policy of State

Government. The State Government should not have interfered with the order

of the Collector and that too at the instance of a third party-the

respondent no.3, when no auction was held and no right was created in

favour of the respondent No.3. Matter as to the grant or renewal of the

lease for a total period of three years was in accordance with the policy

of the State Government and was a matter between the State and the

appellant. It was submitted at the end that the appellant has been

agitating his right diligently throughout and the time lost in prosecuting

legal proceedings upto the High Court wherein the plea raised by the

appellant laying challenge to the order of the State Government was found

to be meritorious and the order of the State Government held liable to be

set aside, the appellant should not have been denied relief and should have

been allowed to operate the mine for that period by which the mining

operation by the appellant fell short of three years time.

Haying heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned

counsel for the State and the private respondent, we are satisfied that the

appeal deserves to be allowed. The ordinary rule of litigation is that the

rights of the panics stand crystallized on the date of commencement of

litigation and right to relief should be decided by reference to the date

on which the petitioner entered the portals of the Court. A petitioner,

though entitled to relief in law, may yet be denied relief in equity

because of subsequent or intervening events, i.e., the events between the

commencement of litigation and the date of decision. The relief to which

the petitioner is held entitled may have been rendered redundant by lapse

of time or may have been rendered incapable of being granted by change in

law. There may be other circumstances which render it inequitable to grant

the petitioner any relief over the respondents because of the balance

tilting against the petitioner on weighing inequities pitted against

equities on the date of judgments. Third party interests may have been

created or allowing relief to the claimant may result in unjust enrichment

on account of events happening in between. Else the relief may not be

denied solely on account of time lost in prosecuting proceedings in

judicial or quasi-judicial forum and for no fault of the petitioner. A

plaintiff or petitioner having been found entitled to a right to relief,

the Court would as an ordinary rule try to place the successful party in

the same position in which he would have been if the wrong complained

against would not have been done to him. The present one is such a case.

The delay in final decision cannot, in any manner, be attributed to the

appellant. No auction has taken place. No third party interest has been

created. The sand mine has remained un-operated for the period for which

the period of operation falls short of three years. The operation had to be

stopped because of the order of the State Government intervening which

order has been found unsustainable in accordance with stipulations

contained in the mining lease consistently with the G.O. issued by the

State of Uttar Pradesh. Merely because a little higher revenue can be

earned by the State Government that cannot be a ground for not enforcing

the obligation of the State Government which it has incurred in accordance

with its own policy decision.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed with costs. The impugned

order of the High Court, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner,

is set aside. Instead, it is directed that the appellant shall be allowed

to operate mine for a full period of three years subject to adjustment for

the period for which he has already operated. The appellant shall remain

liable to pay royalty and make other payments to the State Government in

accordance with the terms of the lease.