RAMAKANT DWIVEDI versus RAFIQ AHMAD & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 571 · Decided: 04-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] l S.C.R. 571 
RAMAKANT DWIVEDI 
v. 
RAFIQ AHMAD & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4 of2016) 
JANUARY 04, 2016 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
Mines and Minerals - Excavation of minor minerals - On the 
basis of renewal of pre-existing lease, on 27.4.2013 - PIL filed -
High Court passed interim order against excavation of minor 
minerals by the appellant holding the grant of lease being violative 
of judgments passed in two cases - On appeal, held: The two 
iudgments of High Court debarred grant of lease under Chapter JI 
of 1963 Rules after 31.5.2012 - The Government order dated 
26.2.2013 on the basis of which renewal dated 27.4.2013 was 
granted, was itself in conflict with the High Court orders - Thus 
grant of lease being in violation of the two judgments are liable to 
be struck down - Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 
1963 - Chapter II. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court has rightly held that the renewal 
was in pursuance of the Government Order dated 26th February, 
2013 which itself was in conflict with the order of the High Court 
in *Nar Narain Mishra's case as reiterated in **Suk/um Sing/i's 
case. Orders of the High Court in * Nar Narain Mishra and 
**Sukha11 Singh clearly debarred the grant oflease under Chapter 
II of Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963, 
after 31st May, 2012. In the case of the appellant, environmental 
clearance was granted on 21st September, 2012 and renewal was 
granted on 27th April, 2013. [para. 41 [573-E-Fl 
2. In the present case, since the lease was granted in 
violation of judgment of the High Court, subsequent withdrawal 
of the Government order dated 31st May, 2012 could not benefit 
the appellant as on the date of grant of lease in favour of the 
appellant, the said Government order was operative. [para 5) 
(575-B-C) 
571 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
572 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] l S.C.R. 
A 
*Nar Narain Mishra vs. The State of U.P. 2013(2) ADJ 
166; **Sukhan Singh versus State of U.P. 2014 (11) 
AD.J 89 - referred to. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
2016 
Case Law Reference 
2013(2) ADJ 166 
2014 (11) ADJ 89 
referred to 
referred to 
Para2 
Para2 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 04 of 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.06.2015 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 35233 
of2015. 
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Arvind Srivastava, Anupam Mishra, Simanta 
Kumar Vinod Kumar K., Gaurav Khanna for the Appellant. 
Gaurav Bhatia,AAG, Samir Ali Khan, Gaurav Srivastava, Aditya 
Narayan Singh, Aamir Naseem, Md. Shahid Anwar, Syed Rafa! Ali, 
Debasis Kukarjee for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. I. Leave granted. This appeal 
has been preferred against order dated l S'h June, 2015 passed by the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in PIL No.35233of2015 granting 
an interim order against excavation of minor minerals by the appellant in 
respect oflease executed in his favour on l 7'h October, 2013. 
2. In the impugned order, the High Court observed that lease 
granted to the appellant was in violation ofits judgments dated 29"' January, 
2013 in Nar Narain Mishra versus The State of U.P. 1 and dated 12"' 
S~ptember, 2014 Suklwn Singh versas State of U.P. 2• In Nar Narain 
Mishra, the operative part of the High Court order is as follows : 
"bi the result, all the writ petitions are disposed with the 
following directions : 
1) The prayers made by the petitioners/applicants for 
considering their applications for renewal of their mining 
leases which were pending on 311512012, and the 
------
! 2013(2) ADJ 166 
2 2014(ll)ADJ 89 
RAMAKANT DWIVEDI v. RAFIQ AHMAD 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
573 
·, 
applications for grant of fresh leases which were pending 
A 
on 311512012 are refused. 
2) The Government Order dated 261712012 and all 
consequent steps taken thereunder are quashed. 
3) Notices issued by the District Magistrate inviting 
applications by E-tendering consequent to the Government 
Order dated 311512012, cannot be allowed to be finalized 
and are quashed with liberty to the respondents tv issue 
fresh notice in accordance with law. 
4) Parties shall bear their own costs." 
3. According to the appellant, on 27" April, 2013, the pre-existing 
lease in his favour which expired on 18"' November, 20 I 0, was renewed 
for further period of three years upto 26"' April, 2016. Approval was 
granted on 14"' March, 2011 and envi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.