SHYAM SHANKAR TIWARI,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Dev Brat Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishnu Pratap,learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) COUNTER Affidavit and Rejoinder Affidavit have been exchanged between the parties. Supplementary Affidavit and Supplementary Counter Affidavit has also been filed. Brief facts of the case is that District Officer issued notice dated 22.4.2001 was issued under Rule 72 of U.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rule 1963 inviting applications for grant of mining lease under Chapter(2) of the Rules with regard to the several plots situate in different villages. One of the plots which was included in the notice was plot no.1251. In plot no.1251 there were two parts, first part(Khand) 2 to 6 of five acres each and second part- Khand 7 of 7.5 acres. Petitioner made an application for grant of lease of plot no.1251 of 30 acres. The applications remained pending and a recommendation was also made in favour of the petitioner for grant of 20 acres on lease as indicated in the map. The notice dated 22.4.2001 mentioned that application shall be received within seven days from 21.5.2001. An order dated 14.2.2007 was communicated to the petitioner informing that his application for grant of mining lease has been rejected. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for following reliefs: (I) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 14.2.2007 passed by(respondent no.3) and the order of Distt. Magistrate Dt.3.2.2007, if any, after summoning the record. (ii) To issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to grant the Mining Lease of Plot No. 1251 of Vill. Kohdar, the. Meja, District Allahabad, measuring area about 20 acres to petitioner, as per recommendation made by the Respondent No.3. (iii) To issue any other writ, Order or direction and this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (iv) To award costs of the Writ petition to the petitioner against the respondents.
(3.) SRI D.B. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition raised the following submissions: (1) There were more than one application in response to the notice dated 22.4.2001, hence the order of District Officer that there was single application of the petitioner, is incorrect. He submits that apart from the application of the petitioner, one application was submitted by Manoj Kumar Singh with regard to five acres of area of plot no.1251. There was another application of Smt.Firoj Begum of plot no.1251 and another application of Sri Ashfaq for same plot no.1251. He submits that there being thus four applications with regard to plot no.1251, the reasons given for rejection of the application is incorrect. (2) The District Officer in the impugned Order has taken an incorrect view that in response to the notice dated 22.4.2001 only one application was received and since no notice was issued for extending the period for receiving the applications by one week as required by Rule 72(2) the application is liable to be rejected. 3 (3) The respondent cannot be allowed to take the benefit in not extending the period of one week for receiving the application and no benefit can be taken by the District Officer of the aforesaid fact. Reliance has been placed on the judgements of Apex Court in 2007(11) Supreme Court Cases 447 Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others, 1996(4) Supreme Court Cases 127 Union of India and others Vs. Major General Madan Lal Yadav and AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1353, Mrutunjay Pani and another Vs. Narmada Bala Sasmal and another. ;