LexM/S A-ONE GRANITES versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
y M/S A-ONE GRANITES v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. FEBRUARY 16, 2001 [G.B. PATTANAIK AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963-Rule 72-Lea~ed area- Grant of lease to responde/1/ under Chapter If-Re-grant of lease under Chapter 11'-Leased area again transferred ji-om Chapter IV to Chapter If of A B the R11/es-lnsertion of Rule 72 under Chapter I I-Requirement of 30 days C .fi'om date of notice.for lease and further 7 days time for receipt of applications under the Rule-Notice issued under the Rule-Lease granted to respondent within lapse of 7 days time limit--Cancellation of notice by Stale Government-Fresh notice issued-Application by respondent under ji-esh notice-Writ petition before High Court against ji-esh notice was dismissed- D Special Leave Petition before this Court-Direction to issue another fresh notice.for grant of/ease-State Government granting mining lease to appellant without following procedure under Rule 72-Writ Petition by respondent before High Court allowed-Applicability of Rule 72 under Chapter II for the leased area held by respondent under Chapter IV-Held, Rule 72 is applicable-Rule 72 is introduced to prevent favouritism, bias and E corruption-Direction to issue Fesh notice for mining lease under the Rule. Interpretation of Statutes Principle of construction-Held, the Courts must adopt a construction which would suppress the mischief and advance the remedy-Purposive F interpretation of the provisions should be adopted. Respondent No. 4 was granted mining lease under Chapter II of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 for a period of I 0 years initially and was renewed for a further period of 5 years till May 1992. In 1992, a declaration was made for the leased area un~er Chapter IV of the Rules for G ~ grant of lease by auction and/or. by under. The mining lease was granted in May 1992 in favour of the respondent for 3 years. In March 1995, District Magistrate, by a notification under Chapter IV of the Rules, withdrew the leased area with effect from 1.4.1995 and made applicable the provisions contained in Chapters II, Ill and VI of the Rules again. In the mean time, in H 1085 1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1200 I J I S.C.R. A August 1994, Rules 72 to 79 were brought into statute under Chapter II providing a procedure of giving 30 days time for grant of mining lease and a further 7 days time for receipt of applications. The District Magistrate issued a notice dated 31.3.1995 under Rule 72 calling for applications for mining leases. The respondent was granted lease by the District Magistrate. The lease deed was not executed. B The respondent filed a Writ Petition before High Court for directing the authority to execute the lease deed. The Respondent State cancelled the notice of the District Magistrate after providing fresh guidelines for grant of mining lease. The District Magistrate issued a fresh notice on 30.5.1995 C inviting applications for mining leases. Applying under the revised notice, the respondent filed another Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the fresh notice. Both the Writ Petition were dismissed by the High Court. The respondent filed Special Leave Petitions before this Court. This Court, disposing of the appeals, granted liberty to the authorities to issue a fresh notice for grant of lease in accordance with law. The respondent insisted that D the application filed pursuant to the second notice dated 30.5.1995 be considered for grant of lease. When no reply was forthcoming, the respondent filed an appeal before Divisional Commissioner under the Rules for directing the District Magistrate to dispose the application on merits for grant of lease. During the pendency of the appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, E the District Magistrate issued a fresh notice for mining lease. The respondent challenged the notice also before Divisional Commissioner. He allowed the appeal of the respondent and directed the District Magistrate to decide the application filed by the respondent on merits. Meanwhile, the Respondent- State Government sanctioned mining lease in favour of appellant for a period of 15 years without following the Rules prescribed. The Divisional F Commissioner dismissed the application of the respondent expressing inability to decide the application on merit in view of lease granted by the State Government to appellant. The respondent filed Writ Petitions again
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.