- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. The suit for injunc tion was filed by the respondent against the appellants. In brief it was alleged that the respondent was granted lease on 17-10-1998 for excavation and transportation of sand. That the lease was cancelled illegally on 27-11-1998. Therefore, the relief sought in the suit was to restrain the appel lants from interfering in the working of excavation and transportation of sand from the land in dispute. An application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of C. P. C. was also moved for injunction in the same terms as claimed in the plaint, during the pendency of the suit. The application was contested by the ap pellants pleading that the lease was validly cancelled due to the death of a worker and in the public interest it was not safe to allow the respondent to continue excava tion and transportation of sand from the disputed land. That the suit is also barred by Sections 77 and 78 of U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963.
(2.) THE learned 1st Additional District Judge, Sonebhadra, after considering the argument by order dated 20-7-1999 issued by the temporary injunction and restrained the appellants from interfering in the transportation of panna and sand regarding which licence was issued by the appellants. Aggrieved by it the present appeal has been preferred. Ave heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri S. P. S. Parmar, learned Counsel for the respon dent. It is admitted that the lease was given to the respondent for which he deposited Rs. 1,62,000/ -. The lease has been cancelled on the ground that a worker died in the accident regarding this work and in the public interest, it was not considered safe by the appel lants to allow the excavation of the sand and panna. Regarding this the contention of the respondent is that the person did not died due to accident in the excavation but he died due to heart attack. No evidence was placed on the record to show that any accident took place during the excavation and person died in the same. Even no case was registered nor the post-mortem was got done. Therefore, the ground for can cellation of the lease was flimsy and a created one for some ulterior motive and the appellants were not justified in can celling the lease.
(3.) THE main argument advanced by the learned Standing Counsel is that the suit is barred by the Rules 77 and 78 of U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. THE Rule 77 provide for an appeal and reads as follows: 'appeal : An appeal against an order passed under these rules by the District Officer of the Committee shall lie to the Divisional Commissioner within a period of sty days from the date of communication of such order to the party aggrieved. ' Rule 78 provide regarding the revision against the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. Ave considered these rules and an of the view that the argument that the suit is barred by Rules 77 and 78 above is totally misconceived. These rules do not provide a bar to a civil suit. There must be specific ouster of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court which has not been mentioned in these rules.;