LexSULEKHAN SINGH & CO. & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] I S.C.R. 91 SULEKHAN SINGH & CO. & ORS. A v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4845-4846 of 2015) JANUARY 04, 2016 B [ANIL R. DAVE AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] Mines and Minerals: Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 - Chapter II and C IV - Mining lease - Grant of - Grant of lease by way of auction - Thereafter, vide Government Order dated 31.5.2012, grant of mining lease by way of e tendering - High Court quashed mining lease granted in favour of the appellants on the ground that the said leases were granted in violation of the GO dated 31.5.2012 - 0 Challenge to, by the appellant on the ground that applications already made prior to 31.5.2012 to be dealt with without applying GO dated 31.5.2012 - Held: Order dated 31.5.2012 was issued by the State of U.P. to bring about transparency and to safeguard the Government revenue - Plea of the appellants that they had acquired a vested right prior to GO. dated 31.5.2012 cannot be accepted - E Pendency of application did not create any right in favour of the appellants - Validity thereof was upheld by the High Court in Nar Narain Mishra's case - Said judgment applied to the mineral in question as specifically laid down by the High Court - Interim order granted by this Court permitting the appellants to operate the mining leases is vacated - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 14. F Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India 2012 (3) SCR 147:(2012) 3 SCC 1; Natural Resources Allocation in Re. Special Reference No.1 of 2012 2012 (9) SCR 311:(2012) 10 SCC 1; Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Principal Secretary 2014 (8) SCR 446 (2014) 9 SCC 516; Goa Foundation vs. Union of India 2014 (5) SCR 302:(2014) 6 SCC 590; Nar Narain Mishra vs. The State of U.P. 2013 (2) ADJ 166; State of Tamil Nadu vs. Mis. Hind Stone 1981 (2) SCC 205: 1981 (2) SCR 742 ;Deepak Kumar vs. State of Haryana 2012 (4) SCC 91 G H 92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] l S.C.R. A 629:2012 (4) SCR 819; Sukhan Singh vs. State of U.P. 2014 (11) ADJ 89; Monnet !spat & Energy Ltd. vs. Union of India 2012 (11) SCC 1: 2012 (7) SCR 644 - Referred to. B c D E F G Case Law Reference 2012 (3) SCR 147 Referred to. Paras 2012 (9) SCR 311 Referred to. Paras 2014 (8) SCR 446 Referred to. Paras 2014 (S) SCR 302 Referred to. Paras 2013 (2) ADJ 166 Referred to. Para 9,17,18,20 1981 (2) SCR 742 Referred to. Para 9,21,22 2012 (4) SCR 819 Referred to. Para 11,18 2014 (11) ADJ 89 Referred to. Para 13,18 2012 (7) SCR 644 Referred to. Para22 CIVILAPPELLATEJURlSDICTION: CivilAppea!Nos. 4845- 4846 of2015. WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 4847-4850 of2015 From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38064 of 2014, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38034, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12622 of 2014 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12663 of 2014. Harin P. Raval, S. Prasad, Prashant Kumar for the Appellants. Gaurav Bhatia, AAG, Samir Ali Khan, Gaurav Srivastava, Aditya Narayan Singh, Aamir Naseem, Md. Shahid Anwar, Syed Rafat Ali, Debasis Kukarjee for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J 1. These appeals by special leave have been preferred against order dated 6th February, 2015 in Civil Misc. Review Application Nos.5064 and 5065 of 2015 and order dated 151h December, 2014 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos.38034, 38064, H 12622 and 12663 of 2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at SULEKHAN SINGH & CO. v. STATE OF U. P. 93 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] Allahabad. A 2. The question for consideration is whether the High Court was justified in quashing mining lease granted in favour of the appellants vide orders dated 24th May, 2014 and 26th May, 2014 on the ground that the said leases were granted in violation of the Government Order (G.O.) dated 31" May, 2012. Under this order, mining leases could only be B granted under Chapter IV of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (the Rules) by way of e-tendering in the interest of transparency and to safeguard the public revenue. 3. Appellants Sulekhan Singh and company were the petitioners in the High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition Nos. 12663 of c 2014. The appellants Manoj Kumar Sood and Makhan Singh were jointly the petitioners in the High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Pet
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.