M/S Awasthi Traders Thru. Prop. Sh. Susheel Chandra Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Geology And Mining Lko. And Ors. Case Summary You Can Listen To on Caseon

0 10 Jun, 2022
Listen in mins | Read in mins

M/S Awasthi Traders Thru. Prop. Sh. Susheel Chandra Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Geology And Mining Lko. And Ors.

Allahabad High Court Writ - C No. 4491 Of 2021

Link copied!

Case Background

Bench

Applied Acts & Sections

No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case

Hello! How can I help you? 😊

Disclaimer: We do not store your data.

Document Text Version

Reserved

Court No. - 27

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4491 of 2021

Petitioner :- M/S Awasthi Traders Thru. Prop. Sh. Susheel Chandra

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Geology And Mining Lko. And Ors.

Counsel for Petitioner :- Pushpila Bisht

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Abhinav Narain Trivedi,

learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material brought

on record as also the records of Revision No. 106 (R)/SM/2020 and Revision

No. 133 (R)/SM/2020.

2.The petition has been filed seeking the following prayers:

“1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order

dated 22.01.2021 passed by the respondent no. 1 in Revision No. 106 (R)/SM/2020,

as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.

2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated

07.12.2020 passed by the respondent no. 1 in Revision No. 133 (R)/SM/2020, as

contained in Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition.

3. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated

30.05.2020 passed by the respondent no. 3, as contained in Annexure No. 17 to the

writ petition.

4. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the

advertisement dated 02.06.2020 to the extent it relates to serial no. 6, as contained

in Annexure No. 19 to the writ petition.

5. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order Letter

of Intent dated 19.06.2020 and permit (after summoning the same in original) issued

in favour of the respondent no. 5, as contained in Annexure No. 24 to the writ

petition.

6. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the

respondent no. 3 to allow the petitioner to undertake mining activity in pursuance to

the lease deed dated 06.11.2018 in respect of area Khand No. 29/1 situated in Village

Bakchhakhadar, Tehsil Maudaha, District Hamirpur.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Department of

Geology and Mining, Government of U.P., by means of Government Order

dated 14.08.2017 issued a declaration under Rule 23 of Minor Minerals Rules,

1963 to grant mining leases of riverbed minerals by means of E-commerce

under the provisions of Chapter IV of Rule, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as

the ‘Rules’), in pursuance of which, an advertisement was issued by District

Magistrate, Hamirpur in respect of Khand No. 29/1 situated in village

Neutral6'itation6Nox6q69599G’%'qLKOGL5B5D

WRIT - C No. - 4491 of 2021

Bakchhakhadar, Tehsil Maudaha, District Hamirpur for an area measuring 12.145

hc. for a quantity of 1,94,304 cubic meters per year sand/morrum. It has been

submitted that petitioner participated in the process of said E-auction-cum-tender

and being the highest bidder of Rs.857 per cubic meters, the Letter of Intent was

issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, he deposited the due amount and got the

mining plan prepared and was also granted the environmental clearance on

24.11.2018. (Environmental clearance dated 24.11.2018 is annexed as Annexure

No. 4). It is also submitted that after issuance of environmental clearance, the

petitioner was granted mining lease and the lease deed was executed on

06.11.2018 for a period of 27.11.2018 to 26.11.2023.

4.In the meantime, environmental clearance given to the petitioner as well as

other persons was challenged before the National Green Tribunal in OA Nos. 263 of

2018 and 264 of 2018. The National Green Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the

‘Tribunal’) quashed the environmental clearance granted to 36 lease holders on

25.09.2019, in pursuance of which, respondent no. 3, District Magistrate, Hamirpur

vide order dated 30.09.2019 stopped the mining activity of the petitioner till

further orders or till the orders passed by the Tribunal. (Copy of the order dated

30.09.2019 is annexed as Annexure No. 6). Thus, the petitioner could not

undertake mining activity. The order of the Tribunal was challenged by the State

of U.P. before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8590 of 2019 and vide

order dated 13.12.2019, Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the order dated 25.09.2019

passed by the Tribunal as well as all consequential orders and remanded the

matter back to the Tribunal for fresh decision. It has been submitted by learned

counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal again passed an order dated 17.12.2019

directing the parties to maintain status quo as also to treat the earlier order passed

by the Tribunal dated 25.09.2019, as interim order. Order dated 17.12.2019 was

challenged by the State of Uttar Pradesh by filing Civil Appeal No. 54-55 of 2020

before the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order

dated 13

January, 2020 stayed the operation and implementation of the order of

Tribunal dated 17.12.2019 passed in OA Nos. 263 of 2018 and 264 of 2018. (Copy

of the order dated 13.01.2020 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.

54-55 of 2020 is annexed as Annexure No. 7). Thereafter, the Hon'ble Apex Court

vide order dated 23.01.2020 passed in the aforesaid civil appeal, stayed the

proceedings of OA Nos. 263 of 2018 and 264 of 2018 pending before the Tribunal

till the lease holders are not made parties.

WRIT - C No. - 4491 of 2021

5.On 23

January, 2020, the Tribunal passed an order allowing the

impleadment of the lease holders and posted the matter for hearing on

26.03.2020. Thereafter, District Magistrate passed an order permitting mining

activity. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the hearing was going

on before the Tribunal in the matter related to environmental clearance of the

petitioner also and date was fixed on 26.03.2020, the petitioner had not started

mining. In the meantime, on 24.03.2020, the National Disaster Management

Authority declared a complete lockdown in the entire country invoking the

provisions of National Disaster Management Act, 2005 due to Pandemic Covid 19,

which was extended vide order dated 14.04.2020. On 17.04.2020, State

Government issued an order providing relaxation in the payment of royalty.

However, since the manpower was not available and due to Pandemic Covid-19,

the mining activity was difficult in April, 2020, another Government Order dated

May, 2020 was issued providing that the permission given to those lease

holders having dues till 31

March, 2020 to carry out mining, provided they deposit

their dues upto 31.05.2020. It has further been submitted that as the petitioner

could not undertake any mining in respect of lease area due to order of the

Tribunal as well as lockdown, as also the petitioner was not informed by any notice

about the dues. On 28.05.2020, the State Government issued Government order

providing the waiver of the dues for the period, in which, mining was stopped in

compliance of the earlier orders. (Copy of the order dated 28.05.2020 is annexed

as Annexure 16 to the petition). Thereafter, the petitioner was served with the

impugned order dated 30.05.2020 passed by respondent no. 3-District Magistrate,

Hamirpur, by which, his lease was cancelled.

6.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lease of the petitioner

was cancelled by the District Magistrate, Hamirpur vide order dated 30.05.2020 for

non-payment of the royalty for the period, in which, the mining activity of the

petitioner was disrupted on account of the factors beyond the control of the

petitioner. Thereafter, the area in question was treated as vacant and

advertisement was issued on 02.06.2020 for tender-cum-auction. Aggrieved by the

order dated 30.05.2020 and the advertisement dated 02.06.2020, petitioner filed

revision along with the interim relief application before the Secretary in the month

of July, 2020, which was registered as Revision No. 106 (R)/SM/2020 with the

following main prayers:

“i. Set aside/quash the order dated 30.05.2020 passed by the respondent

no. 2, as contained in annexure no. 18 of the revision.

WRIT - C No. - 4491 of 2021

II. Set aside the advertisement dated 02.06.2020, for the area mentioned

at Sl. No. 6 of the impugned advertisement, passed by the respondent

no. 2, as contained in Annexure No. 19 to the revision.”

7.The said revision was heard and admitted vide order dated 03.09.2020. An

office memo was sent to the District Magistrate, Hamirpur with the requisition that

on 18th November, 2020, comments/report may be placed in Room Nos. 616, 617,

C-Block, 6th Floor, Lok Bhawan at 4 p.m. at the time of hearing on the aforesaid

revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the identical cases, vide

order dated 24.06.2020, protection was given by a Division Bench of this Court

passed in Writ Petition No. 10023 of 2020, M/s. New Praveera Infrahigh Private

Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Copy of the dated 24.06.2020 is annexed at page

206 of the petition). It has been submitted that interim relief application filed by

the petitioner in his revision No. 106 (R)/SM/2020 was pending, but since the

same was not being heard, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 20321 of 2020

(M/S Awasthi Traders, Banda Thru. Prop. Sh. Susheel Chandra Vs. State of U.P. &

Ors.) before this Court with the prayer that revision may be decided within a

stipulated period. The aforesaid petition was disposed of vide order dated

11.11.2020 with the direction to the Authority to consider and decide the

application for interim relief on the next date fixed, i.e., 18.11.2020, with the

further direction that if it is not decided on the said date, decide the same within a

period of six weeks and also decide the revision itself in accordance with law within

the said period. (Copy of the order is annexed as Annexure No. 27.) Copy of the

order was served on the revisional authority with the request that the application

of interim relief may be heard, but since the revisional authority was not available

on 18th November, 2020, hence, the matter was posted for 20.11.2020. On the

said date also, the District Magistrate failed to file the comments/reply, hence,

once again opportunity was granted to him to file reply. Learned counsel for the

petitioner has submitted that thereafter, no date of listing of aforesaid revision was

communicated to the petitioner, however, later on, petitioner learnt that another

revision is filed by some imposter in the name of the petitioner bearing Revision

No. 133 (R)/SM/2020 (M/s. Awasthi Traders Vs. District Magistrate, Hamirpur &

Anr.) with the following main prayers:

“I. Call for records and quash impugned order dated 30.05.2020 passed

by the District Magistrate, Hamirpur (respondent no. 1) (Annexure Nos. 1

of the revision petition).

II. Direct the respondent to allow the revisionist to carry out its mining

operations and without payment of additional amount, for a time period

as felt appropriate by the Revisional authority by adjusting the left over

WRIT - C No. - 4491 of 2021

amounts.

III. Or else direct the respondent to return entire amount deposited by

the petitioner, including, application fee, process fee, TCS, first instalment

of lease amount, stamp duty and all other amount deposited by the

petitioner for obtaining the lease, along with 18% interest in compliance

of the government order dated 13/12/2018 after deduction of the utilized

amounts in the excavated quantity.”

8.The said revision was admitted and vide office memo No. 1047 SM/2020,

Lucknow dated 3rd November, 2020, comments/reply was asked from the District

Magistrate, Hamirpur and it was also expected that report be placed on 2nd

December, 2020 in Room No. 616, 617, C-Block, Lok Bhawan at 4 p.m.

9.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner requested

the Revisional Authority for clubbing the Revision No. 106 (R)/SM/2020 and 133

(R)/SM/2020 to determine, as to which revision has been filed by the actual lease

holder of area in question. She also submitted that District Magistrate and District

Mining Officer placed the comments in the Revision No. 133 (R)/SM/2020, without

disclosing this fact that in Revision No. 106 (R)/SM/2020 is already pending

seeking the similar relief. However, the Revisional Authority, on the basis of the

reply of the District Magistrate dated 18.11.2020, dismissed the Revision No. 133

(R)/SM/2020 filed by the imposter, vide order dated 07.12.2020 with the finding

that the petitioner had already filed a Writ Petition No. 11143 of 2020 before the

Allahabad High Court with the same prayer and, therefore, the revision is not

maintainable. It has been submitted that thereafter, the petitioner filed an

application before Secretary/Director, Department of Geology and Mining,

Government of U.P. requesting therein to recall the order passed in Revision No.

133 (R)/SM/2020, as it was not filed by the petitioner (lease holder), but by some

imposter. (Copy of the application is annexed as Annexure No. 28). However, in

place of calling the record of Revision No. 133 (R)/SM/2020 and the Revisional

Authority vide impugned order dated 22

January, 2021 dismissed the Revision

No. 106 (R)/SM/2020 filed by the petitioner (actual lease holder) on the ground

that one Revision No. 133 (R)/SM/2020, in which, the same impugned order was

challenged, had already been dismissed on 07.12.2020, therefore, Revision No.

106 (R)/SM/2020 is not maintainable.

10.Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the District

Magistrate committed wrong in passing the impugned order dated 30.05.2020.

Moreover, the Revisional Authority also wrongly dismissed the Revision No. 106

(R)/SM/2020 vide impugned order dated 22.01.2021 on the ground that Revision

WRIT - C No. - 4491 of 2021

No. 133 (R)/SM/2020 with the identical prayer had already been dismissed vide

order dated 07.12.2020. It has vehemently been submitted that the Revisional

Authority while passing the impugned order dated 22.01.2021 has completely

ignored the fact that Revision No. 133 (R)/SM/2020 was filed by some imposter

and not by the petitioner (actual lease holder), for which, the petitioner had even

moved application requesting the Revisional Authority for clubbing the Revision

No. 106 (R)/SM/2020 and Revision No. 133 (R)/SM/2020 to determine, as to which

revision has been filed by the actual lease holder of the area in question. It is also

submitted that the Revisional Authority while passing the impugned orders has also

not considered the fact that in Revision No. 133 (R)/SM/2020 filed by imposter, the

District Magistrate and District Mining Officer had sent the objection/comments

dated 18.11.2020 in compliance of the office memo dated 3

November, 2020

issued by Secretary, Department of Mining, but he did not sent

comments/objection in Revision No. 106 (R)/SM/2020 within time in pursuance of

the office memo dated 3

September, 2020.

11.It is, thus, submitted that indulgence of this Court is necessary and the

petition may be allowed and set aside the impugned orders.

12.On the other hand, learned Chief Standing Counsel opposed the submission

of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there is no illegality in

the orders passed either by the District Magistrate or the Revisional Authority. He

further submitted that the dues of royalty was not deposited by the petitioner

deliberately, on account of which, his lease was cancelled by the District Magistrate

vide order dated 30.05.2020. He also submitted that revision was pending before

the Secretary, Department of Geology and Mining, but very cleverly, the application

dated 15

December, 2020 was given by the petitioner in the office of Director,

Department of Geology and Mining, U.P., Lucknow with the averment that neither

Writ Petition No. 11143 of 2020 at Allahabad High Court nor Revision No. 133

(R)/SM/2020 was filed by the petitioner.

13.At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner interrupted and informed

that Dr. Roshan Jacob, Secretary, Department of Geology and Mining is also having

the charge of Director, Directorate of Department of Geology and Mining, U.P.,

Lucknow since long time, therefore, it cannot be said that it was not brought into

the notice of the Secretary. She also submitted that this fact was orally informed to

the Secretary on 20.11.2020.

On consulting with Shri Paresh Mishra, under Secretary, Department of

WRIT - C No. - 4491 of 2021

Geology and Mining and Amit Khaushik, Joint Director, Department of Geology and

Mining, U.P., Lucknow, those were present in the Court, Shri Trivedi, Chief Standing

Counsel informed that Dr. Roshan Jacob, IAS is holding the dual charge.

14.Learned Chief Standing Counsel, on the strength of counter affidavit filed by

respondent nos. 1 to 4, submitted that the petitioner had filed two revisions

against the order of District Magistrate, Hamirpur dated 30.05.2020 as well as

notification dated 02.06.2020 bearing Revision No. 106 (R)/SM/2020 and Revision

No. 133 (R)/SM/2020. The petitioner also filed Writ (C) No. 11143 of 2020 (M/s.

Awasthi Traders Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) before Allahabad High Court, in which, no

interim order was granted. Thereafter, on the ground of filing of the aforesaid writ

petition before this Court at Allahabad, Revision No. 133 (R)/SM/2020 was

dismissed by the revisional authority on 7

December, 2020, being not

maintainable. Revision No. 106 (R)/SM/2020 was also dismissed by the revisional

authority on the ground of non-maintainability. It has further been submitted that

against the cancellation of the lease by District Magistrate, Hamirpur vide order

dated 30.05.2020, the petitioner preferred aforesaid two revisions as well as Writ

Petition (C) No. 11143 of 2020, but since no interim protection was granted to him,

therefore, the mining lease of the area in question was allotted in favour of some

other person. Further, the petitioner failed to deposit the due amount of

Rs.13,73,77,788/-, DMF amount of Rs.2,62,26,672/-, TCS amount of

Rs.52,45,152/- as well as amount of Rs.51,84,000/- in lieu of the notice.

Learned Chief Standing Counsel submitted that both the revisions were filed

by the petitioner, which have been decided by the revisional authority in

accordance with law, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the

case. It has next been submitted that the petitioner also preferred an application

on 9

September, 2020 before the District Magistrate/District Officer, Hamirpur with

the prayer that the order dated 30.05.2020 may be cancelled with liberty to

deposit the due amount and he may be allowed for mining activity. It has, thus,

been submitted that the present petition is misconceived and liable to be

dismissed.

15.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Chief Standing Counsel as well as gone through the

contents of the petition, its enclosures, counter affidavit, as also the records of

Revision Nos. 106 (R)/SM/2020 and 133 (R)/SM/2020.

16.It is evident that the lease was granted to the petitioner for the area in

WRIT - C No. - 4491 of 2021

question by executing lease deed on 06.11.2018 for the period of 27.11.2018 to

26.11.2023. Thereafter, the environmental clearance of the lease holders, including

the petitioner, was the issue in question before the National Green Tribunal in O.A.

Nos. 263 of 2018 and 264 of 2018 and vide order dated 25.09.2019, the

environmental clearance of the lease holders was quashed by the Tribunal.

Thereafter, District Magistrate/District Officer, Hamirpur vide order dated

30.09.2019 stopped the mining activities.

The order of the Tribunal was challenged by the State of U.P. before the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8590 of 2019, which was allowed vide order

dated 13.12.2019 by quashing the order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the Tribunal

as well as all consequential orders, and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal

for fresh decision. Again, the Tribunal passed an order on 17.12.2019 directing the

parties to maintain status quo treating the earlier order dated 25.09.2019 as an

interim order. The subsequent order of the Tribunal dated 17.12.2019 was again

challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the State Government by filing Civil

Appeal No. 54-55 of 2020, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated

January, 2020 stayed the operation of the said order dated 17.12.2019 passed

by the Tribunal. Thereafter, vide order dated 23

January, 2020, the proceedings of

O.A. No. 263 of 2018 and 264 of 2018 pending before the Tribunal were also

stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, till the lease holders were not made parties.

On 23

January, 2020, the Tribunal passed the order allowing the impleadment of

lease holders. The matter was sub-judice. In the meantime, due to Pandemic

Covid-19, complete lockdown was declared on 24.03.2020 in the Country.

17.On 30.05.2020, District Magistrate/District Officer, Hamirpur cancelled the

lease of petitioner. It is also evident from the record that challenging the said order

dated 30.05.2020 as well as advertisement dated 02.06.2020, a Revision No. 106

(R)/SM/2020 was filed, which was heard and admitted by the Revisional Authority

on 03.09.2020. The Revisional Authority, while fixing the matter for 18

November,

2020, asked the instructions/comments from the District Magistrate/District Officer,

Hamirpur. However, the District Magistrate/District Officer, Hamirpur failed to

submit the comments/objections in the Revision No. 106 (R)/SM/2020 on the date

fixed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 20321 of 2020 before this

Court with the prayer that his revision may be decided within a stipulated period.

The aforesaid petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.11.2020 (Annexure 27

to the petition) with the direction to revisional authority to consider and decide the

WRIT - C No. - 4491 of 2021

application for interim relief on the next date fixed with the further direction that if

it is not decided on the said date, decide the same within a period of six weeks,

and also decide the revision in accordance with law within the said period.

Relevant part of the order dated 11.11.2020 passed by this Court in Misc.

Single No. 20321 of 2020 is being reproduced as under:

“Heard Ms. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri

Pankaj Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the

respondent-State.

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner restricted

her prayer for a direction to consider the application for interim relief on

the date fixed i.e. 18.11.2020 or to decide the revision within shortest

stipulated period.

Learned Additional Chief Standing counsel has no objection to the request

made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

In view of above,without entering into the merits of the case, the writ

petition is disposed of with direction to the opposite party no.1 to

consider and decide the application for interim relief on the next date

fixed i.e. 18.11.2020, if possible and if not within a period of six weeks

thereafter or consider and decide the revision of the petitioner bearing

No.106(R)SM/2020 in accordance with law within the aforesaid period.”

18.Further, the record of Revision No. 106 (R)/SM/2020 reveals that aforesaid

order was placed before the Revisional Authority through application dated

18.11.2020. Another application dated 7

January, 2021 was also sent through

registered post, which is also on the record of Revision No. 106 (R)/SM/2020 along

with the envelop, The endorsement of the Revisional Authority is also there on the

said application dated 07.01.2021, which is marked to APS. However, the

objection/comments of the District Magistrate/District Officer, Hamirpur was not

made available in the Revision No. 106 (R)/SM/2020 upto 07.01.2021.

19.The record of Revision No. 133 (R)/SM/2020, which is also available before

this Court, reveals that it has also been filed in the name of the petitioner with the

same prayer. The record of Revision No. 133 (R)/SM/2020 further reveals that vide

order dated 01.10.2020, the Revisional Authority asked the comments from the

District Magistrate/District Officer, Hamirpur and expected that report be placed on

December, 2020. From the record of Revision No. 133 (R)/SM/2020, it is also

evident that it is an undated revision. The record further reveals that the District

Magistrate/District Officer, Hamirpur submitted the comments in this revision vide

letter No. 1713-Khanij-MMC/Tees-Vividha (2020-21) dated 01.12.2020. In the

comments sent by the District Magistrate in the aforesaid Revision No. 133

(R)/SM/2020, the fact that one revision is already pending against the same order,

has not been disclosed. The comment submitted by the District Magistrate,

WRIT - C No. - 4491 of 2021

Hamirpur, which is duly signed on 28.11.2020 and dispatched vide letter dated

01.12.2020, is as under:

"isz"kd]

ftykf/kdkjh]

gehjiqjA

lsok esa]

lfpo]

m0iz0 'kklu]

HkwrRo ,ao [kfudeZ vuqHkkx]

y[kuÅA

la[;k&1713@[kfut&,e0,e0lh0&rhl&fofo/k ¼2020&21½ fnukad &01-12-2020

fo"k; &iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk la[;k&133¼vkj½@,l,e@2020 es0 voLFkh VsªMlZ }kjk

izks0 Jh lq'khy pUnz cuke ftykf/kdkjh] gehjiqj ds lEcU/k esaA

egksn;]

d`i;k mi;qZDr fo"k;d dk;kZy; Kki la[;k&1047@,l,e0@2020 y[kuÅ

fnukad&03-11-2020 ftlds }kjk fo"k;xr iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk esa lquokbZ gsrq fnukad&02-

12-2020 dh frfFk fu;r gksus RkFkk fu;r frfFk ls iwoZ vk[;k miyC/k djk;s tkus dh

vis{kk dh x;h gS] dk lUnHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsaA

iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk ds lEcU/k esa rF;kRed vk[;k bl i= ds lkFk layXu dj

iszf"kr dh tk jgh gSA

layXud& ;FkksifjA

Hkonh;]

g0 viBuh;

28-11-2020

Kkus'oj f=ikBh

ftykf/kdkjh]

gehjiqjA

iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk la[;k&133¼vkj½@,l,e@2020 es0 voLFkh VsªMlZ izks0

lq'khy pUnzk cuke ftykf/kdkjh] gehjiqj ds lEcU/k esa vk[;kA

'kklukns'k la[;k &1875@86&2017&57¼lk½@2017 Vh0lh0&1 fnukad&

14-08-2017 esa fn;s x;s funsZ'kkuqlkj tuin gehjiqj ds ckyw@ekSje ds fjDr [kuu

{ks=ksa dks bZ&fufonk lg bZ&uhykeh ds ek/;e ls [kuu ifjgkj ij Lohd`r djus gsrq

dk;kZy; ds foKfIr fnukad&09-05-2018 }kjk foKfIr izdkf'kr djk;h x;h Fkh] ftlesa

iz'uxr {ks= xzke cDNk[kknj [k.M la[;k&29@1 Hkh lfEEkfyr FkkA foKfIr vUrxZr

mPpre fcM nj :0&857@&izfr ?kueh0 ds vk/kkj ij es0 voLFkh VsªMlZ izks0 lq'khy

pUnz iq= Jh tksxs'oj voLFkh fuoklh xzke fxjoka Fkkuk fxjoka tuin ckank m0iz0 ds

i{k esa xzke cDNk[kknj [k.M la[;k&29@1 jdck&12-145 gs0 dk [kuu iV~Vk 05 o"kZ

dh vof/k fnukad&27-11-2018 ls 26-11-2023 rd ds fy, Lohd`r@fu"ikfnr fd;k

x;k FkkA

iV~Vk/kkjd ds Åij fd'r ds en esa :0&17]90]07]420@&Mh0,e0,Q0 ds en

esa :0&2]62]26]672@& o Vh0lh0,l0 ds en esa :0&52]45]152@& o unh dh

ty/kkjk esa voS/k [kuu ls lEcfU/kr uksfVl ds en esa :0&51]48]000@& cdk;k FkkA

cdk;k /kujkf'k tek djus ds lEcU/k esa dk;kZy; ds i=

WRIT - C No. - 4491 of 2021

la[;k&290@[kfut&,e0,e0lh&rhl&fofo/k¼2019&2020½ fnukad&28-05-2019 }kjk

uksfVl fuxZr fd;k x;k FkkA iV~Vk/kkjd }kjk fnukad&30-05-2019 dks izR;kosnu

izLrqr dj uksfVl fnukad&28-05-2019 dks fu{ksfir djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k FkkA

iV~Vk/kkjd dk izR;kosnu lUrks"ktu ugh Fkk] D;ksafd [kku vf/kdkjh] gehjiqj dh tkap

vk[;k fnukad&25-05-2019 esa ;g Li"V :i ls mYYks[k fd;k x;k gS fd

iV~Vk/kkjd }kjk unh dh ty/kkjk esa voS/k [kuu fd;k tk jgk FkkA iV~Vk/kkjd }kjk

unh dh ty/kkjk esa fd;s x;s voS/k [kuu dh /kujkf'k :0&51]84]000@& dh olwyh

gsrq uksfVl fuxZr fd;k x;k FkkA cdk;k fd'r] Mh0,e0,Q0 o Vh0lh0,l0 dh

/kujkf'k tek fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ mRRkj ugha fn;k x;k vkSj u gh cdk;k

/kujkf'k tek dh tk jgh FkhA

m0iz0 mi[kfut¼ifjgkj½¼47oka la'kks/ku½ fu;ekoyh&2019 ds fu;e&58 esa

LokfeRo HkkVd ;k vU; ns;ksa ds Hkqxrku u djus ds ifj.kke ds lEcU/k esa izkfo/kku

fd;k x;k gS fd

¼1½**jkT; ljdkj ;k mlds }kjk bl fufeRRk izkf/kd`r dksbZ vf/kdkjh] iV~Vsnkj ij bl

ckr dh lwpuk rkehy djus ds i'pkr~ fd og lwpuk izkIr gksus ds fnukad ls rhl

fnu ds Hkhrj jkT; ljdkj dks ns; LokfeRo ¼jk;YVh½ lfgr iV~Vs ds v/khu ns; dksbZ

/kujkf'k ;k vifjgk;Z HkkVd dk Hkqxrku djsa] ;fn ml Hkqxrku ds fy;s fuf'pr

fnukad ls iUnzg fnu ds Hkhrj mldk Hkqxrku u fd;k x;k gks] rks [kuu iV~~Vk

lekIr dj ldrk gSA ;g vf/kdkj iV~Vsnkj ls ,sls ns;ksa dks Hkw&jkTkLo ds cdk;k

ds :i esa olwyh djus ds jkT; ljdkj ds vf/kdkj ds vfrfjfDr gksxk vkSj ml ij

dksbZ izfrdwy izHkko ugha iM+sxkA**

[kuu iV~Vk foys[k ds Hkkx&3 lkekU; micU/k ds fcUnq&1 esa izkfo/kku gS

fd ;fn iV~Vsnkj m0iz0 mi[kfut ¼ifjgkj½ fu;ekoyh&1963 ds fdlh fu;e ;k bl

iV~Vs dh izlafonk rFkk fdlh 'krZ dks Hkax djs rks jkT; ljdkj iV~Vk lekIr dj

ldrh gS o izfrHkwfr tek dks iw.kZr% ;k va'kRk% tCr dj ldrh gS ijUrq izfrcU/k ;g

gS fd iV~Vk lekIr fd;s tkus ds iwoZ iV~Vsnkj dks mUgsa Hkax djus dk Li"Vhdj.k nsus

ds fy;s ;Fkksfpr volj fn;k tk;sxkA mDr ds vuqlkj iV~Vk/kkjd dks ns; /kujkf'k

tek djus gsrq uksfVl tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlds dze esa u gh cdk;k /kujkf'k tek

dh x;h vkSj u gh uksfVl dk lUrks"ktud mRRkj izLrqr fd;k x;kA

iV~Vk/kkjd }kjk izfrHkwfr ds :i esa 25 izfr'kr :0 4]16]29]632@& dk

lek;kstu djus rFkk lek;kstu mijkUr cdk;k /kujkf'k fd'r :0&

13]73]77]788@& ,oa Mh0,e0,Q0 ds en esa :0& 2]62]26]672@& ,oa Vh0lh0,l0

ds en esa :0&52]45]152@& ,oa uksfVl ds en esa :0&51]84]000@& dks tek djus

ds funsZ'k nsrs gq;s dk;kZy; vkns'k la[;k&240@[kfut&,e0,e0lh0&rhl&fofo/k

¼2020&21½ fnukad&30-05-2020 }kjk [kuu iV~Vk fujLr dj fn;k x;kA

HkwrRo ,oa [kfudeZ vuqHkkx] m0iz0 'kklu] y[kuÅ }kjk tkjh 'kklukns'k

la[;k&781@86&2020&14¼lk0½@2020 fnukad&23-05-2020 ,oa eq[; lfpo] m0iz0

'kklu] y[kuÅ }kjk tkjh 'kkluns'k la[;k&782@86&2020&14¼lk0½@2020

fnukad&26-05-2020 esa unh ry fLFkr mi[kfutksa ds fuf"dz; [kuu iV~Vksa dks fujLr

dj] mRiUu fjDr {ks=ksa dks vYidkyhu O;oLFkk ds vUrxZr vuqKk i= ij vf/kdre

N% ekg dh vof/k gsrq bZ&fufonk ds ek/;e ls Lohd`r fd;s tkus ds funsZ'k fn;s x;s

gSA mDr ds dze esa foKfIr la[;k&270@[kfut&,e0,e0lh0&rhl&fofo/k¼2020&21½

fnukad 02-06-2020 tkjh dh x;h Fkh] ftlesa ckyw@ekSje [kuu {ks= xzke cDNk[kknj

[k.M la[;k&29@1 Hkh 'kkfey FkkA mijksDr foKfIr esa Jh jk?kosUnz flag vkRet

es?kjkt flag 'ks[kor fuoklh& lh mfeZYkk ekxZ guqeku uxj tuin t;iqj

jktLFkku }kjk tuin gehjiqj rglhy ekSngk xzke cDNk[kknj [k.M la[;k&29@1

WRIT - C No. - 4491 of 2021

jdck&30 ,dM+ ek=k&97152 ?kueh0 ds [kuu iV~Vk gsrq :0&567@&izfr ?kueh0 dh

nj izLrqr dh x;h] tks lkoZf/kd FkhA fufonk esa mPpre nj gksus ds dkj.k dk;kZy;

ds i= la[;k&432@[kfut&,e0,e0lh0&rhl&fofo/k ¼2020&21½ fnukad&19-06-2020

}kjk ysVj vkQ bUVsaV ¼LOI) fuxZr fd;k x;k gSA izLrkod }kjk ysVj vkQ bUVsaV

tkjh gksus ds mijkUr [kuu vuqKk dh ns; 50 izfr'kr /kujkf'k :0&2]75]42]592@&

tek fd;k tk pqdk gS rFkk [kuu {ks= ds fy;s fuxZr i;kZoj.kh; vukifRRk izek.k i=

Jh jk?kosUnz flag ds uke ls gLrkarfjr gks pqdk gS] ftldh Nk;kizfr layXu gSA

d`i;k vk[;k vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"krA

g0 viBuh; g0 viBuh; g0 viBuh;

¼ds0ds0jk;½ ¼fou; izdk'k JhokLro½ ¼Kkus'oj f=ikBh½

[kku vf/kdkjh vij ftykf/kdkjh ¼fOk0@jk0½ ftykf/kdkjh

gehjiqj gehjiqj gehjiqj"

20.Vide order dated 07.12.2020, the Revisional Authority dismissed the Revision

No. 133 (R)/SM/2020 as not maintainable with the observation that the revisionist

had already filed a writ petition being Writ (C) No. 11143 of 2020 against the order

dated 30.05.2020, which was pending before the High Court and the area in

question was also not vacant.

It is very surprising that in the instructions/comments of District

Magistrate/District Officer, Hamirpur, it is nowhere mentioned that Writ Petition (C)

No. 11143 of 2020 (M/s. Awasthi Traders Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) was filed on

26.06.2020 by the petitioner challenging the cancellation of lease order and no

interim order has been passed therein. It is also evident from the pleading of the

petition mentioned in paragraph 44 that on learning about the order dated 7

December, 2020 passed by the Revisional Authority in Revision No. 133

(R)/SM/2020 filed one alleged imposter of the petitioner, moved an application

before the Revisional Authority with the request to recall the order passed in

Revision No. 133 (R)/SM/2020. By the said application, the petitioner also informed

that the said Revision No. 133 (R)/SM/2020 was not filed by the petitioner and also

requested to decide the same along with Revision No. 106 (R)/SM/2020. In the

aforesaid application, it is also mentioned that petitioner has not filed any petition

being Writ Petition (C) No. 11143 of 2020 in the Allahabad High Court and he had

actually filed Misc. Single No. 20321 of 2020 before the Lucknow Bench of the High

Court. It is also evident from the said application that it was received on

15.12.2020 in the dispatch and receipt Section of Director, Mining and Geology,

Lucknow. The contents of the aforesaid application is being reproduced as under:

"lsok esa]

WRIT - C No. - 4491 of 2021

lfpo@funs'kd]

HkwrRo ,oa [kfudeZ]

m0iz0] y[kuÅ

egksn;]

fuosnu gS fd vkids i=kad la[;k 1080@¼1½@,l,e@2020 rn~fnukad ds

lanHkZ esa crkuk gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk iqujh{k.k la[;k 133@¼vkj½,l,e@2020 nkf[ky

ugha dh xbZ cfYd fdlh "kM~;a=dkjh }kjk izkFkhZ dk vfgr pkgrs gq, nkf[ky dh x;h

gS tks izkFkhZ ds laKku esa ugha gSA lkFk&lkFk ;g Hkh crkuk gS fd fjV ;kfpdk la[;k

11143@2020 Hkh izkFkhZ }kjk nk;j ugha dh x;hA

crkuk gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk nk;j iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk la[;k

106@vkj@,l,e@2020 nk;j dh x;h gSA ftldh vk[;k vHkh rd vkids

dk;kZy; dks ugh miyC/k djk;h x;h gSA

izkFkhZ }kjk nk;j fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 20321@2020 tks y[kuÅ csap esa nk;j

dh xbZ gS ftldh Nk;kizfr layXu gSA izkFkhZ }kjk mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn esa dksbZ

Hkh ;kfpdk nk;j ugha dh x;h gSA tks Hkh ;kfpdk nk;j dh x;h gS og y[kuÅ csap

esa gh izkFkhZ }kjk nk;j dh x;h gS ftldh fjV la[;k mijksDr gSA

mijksDr ds lEcU/k esa egksn;k ls fuosnu gS fd mijksDr vkns'k la[;k

1080@¼1½,l,e@2020 dks RkRdky izHkko ls fujLr@fjdky djrs gq,

106@vkj@,l,e@2020 ,oa 133@¼vkj0½@,l,e@2020 dks ,d djrs gq, lquokbZ

dh rkjh[k fu;r djrs gq, [kfut vf/kdkjh gehjiqj ls vk[;k eaxkus dh d`ik djsaA

vfr d`ik gksxhA

layXud&

1- Nk;kizfr mPp U;k;ky; ;kfpdk la[;k 20321@2020

2- Nk;kizfr vkns'k la[;k 1080@¼1½,l,e@2020

izkFkhZ

eSllZ&voLFkh VsªMlZ

g0&lq'khypUnz

lq'khy pUnz

¼izksizkbVj½

es0 voLFkh VsªMlZ

fxjokW] ckWnk"

21. Admittedly, contents of paragraph 44 of the petition have not been denied in

the counter affidavit. It is also relevant to take into consideration the fact that in

the Revision No. 106 (R)/SM/2020, the comments were sought from the District

Magistrate by the Revisional Authority vide office memo dated 03.09.2020 while

fixing the matter for 18

November, 2020, but the comments were not placed by

the District Magistrate/District Officer, Hamirpur within time. However, later on,

vide letter No. 2300/Khanij-MMC-Tees-Vividh (2020-21) dated 16

January, 2021,

which was signed on 14

January, 2021, the comments/objections were submitted

in Revision No. 106 (R)/SM/2020. Surprisingly, in the comments sent by the letter

dated 16.01.2021, this fact does not find place that another Revision bearing No.

133 (R)/SM/2020 filed against the same order, had already been dismissed by the

Revisional Authority on 07.12.2020. However, the Revisional Authority dismissed

WRIT - C No. - 4491 of 2021

the Revision No. 106 (R)/SM/2020 vide order dated 22

January, 2021 with the

observation that order of cancellation of lease for the same area of mining,

Revision No. 133 (R)/SM/2020 had already decided on 07.12.2020 and, therefore,

subsequent revision is not maintainable.

Comments sent in Revision No. 106 (R)/SM/2020 are as under :

"isz"kd]

ftykf/kdkjh]

gehjiqjA

lsok esa]

lfpo]

m0iz0 'kklu]

HkwrRo ,ao [kfudeZ vuqHkkx]

y[kuÅA

la[;k&2300@[kfut&,e0,e0lh0&rhl&fofo/k ¼2020&21½ fnukad & 16-01-2021

fo"k; & iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk la[;k&106¼vkj½@,l,e@2020 es0 voLFkh VsªMlZ }kjk

izks0 Jh lq'khy pUnz cuke ftykf/kdkjh] gehjiqj ds lEcU/k esaA

egksn;]

d`i;k mi;qZDr fo"k;d dk;kZy; Kki la[;k&969@,l,e@2020 y[kuÅ

fnukad&03-09-2020 ftlds }kjk fo"k;xr iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk esa lquokbZ gsrq fu;r frfFk

ls iwoZ vk[;k miyC/k djk;s tkus dh vis{kk dh x;h gS] dk lUnHkZ xzg.k djus dk

d"V djsaA

iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk ds lEcU/k esa rF;kRed vk[;k bl i= ds lkFk layXu dj

iszf"kr dh tk jgh gSA

layXud& ;FkksifjA

Hkonh;]

g0 viBuh;

14-1-------

Kkus'oj f=ikBh

o/c ftykf/kdkjh]

gehjiqjA

iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk la[;k&106¼vkj½@,l,e@2020 es0 voLFkh VsªMlZ izks0