KULDEEP SINGH BUTOLA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
LAWS(UTN)-2013-11-17
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on November 13,2013

Kuldeep Singh Butola Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is an applicant for minor lease for which an advertisement has been issued by Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam (in short 'GMVN'), which is a Government Company. The petitioner alleges anomaly in the said advertisement and submits that it is in violation of Rule 72(i) (ii) of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, which reads as under: - R. 72. - Availability of area for re -grant on mining lease to be notified. - (i) If any area, which was held under a mining lease under Chapter II or on reserved under section 17 -A of the Act, becomes available for regrant, the District Officer shall notify the availability of the area through a notice on mining lease inviting for applications for grant of mining lease specifying a date, which shall not be earlier than thirty days from the date of notice and giving description of such area and a copy of such notice shall be displayed on the notice board of his office and shall also be sent to the Tehsildar of such area and the Director. (ii) The applications for grant of mining lease under sub -rule 1, shall be received within seven working days from the date specified in the notice referred to in the said sub -rule. If, however, the number of applications received for any area is less than three, the District Officer may further extend the period for seven more working days and if even thereafter, the number of applications remain less than three, the district officer shall notify the availability of the area afresh in accordance with the said sub -rule. (iii) An application for grant of mining lease for such area which is already held under a lease or notified under sub -rule 1 of rule 23 or reserved under section 17 -A of the Act and whose availability has not been notified under sub -rule 1 shall be deemed to be premature and shall not be considered and the application fee thereon if paid shall be refunded. The contention of the petitioner is that in place of thirty days time, only twenty days time has been given to move an application. In case it is thirty days, the time period would have been till 26.11.2013.
(2.) THIS mistake seems to be apparent. Rules provide 30 days time. Hence the petitioner is at liberty to file his application till 26.11.2013.
(3.) FURTHER as an interim measure, GMVN is given a liberty to give a "corrigendum" for extending the date upto thirty days, as provided under Rule 72(i)(ii) of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. The respondents shall file counter affidavit within a period of two weeks. List this petition after two weeks in the daily cause list.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.