G.D. Dube, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a Private Company. It is alleged that it has been granted provisional registration certificate by the District Industries Officer, Jalaun at Orai on 13 -3 -1987 for manufacturing concrete blocks. For these manufacturing activities, the petitioner required morrum. They applied for mining lease on 13 -3 -1987 to the Mines and Mineral Officer, Jalaun at Orai. The Joint Director Industries had requested the Joint Secretary Industries, Uttar Pradesh Government on 30 -4 -1987 to grant licence stating that the establishment of the Industry was likely to provide employment to the local residents and also provide an Industry to Jalaun which is a zero industry district. In this report, it was also emphasised that this will save valuable cultivable land from being cut and converted into bricks. Sri Dharamvir Prasad, Deputy General Manager of Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation, had also sent a letter to the aforesaid Joint Secretary recommending that the application of the petitioner be considered favourably. This application was rejected by the District Magistrate of Jalaun and the letter intimating this rejection to the petitioner was sent by the Additional District Officer, Jalaun. As against this order, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 30 of the Mines and Mineral Act No. 67 of 1956 before the Government of India. The petitioner has also filed an application for stay on which the Tribunal had directed maintenance of status quo as existed on 16th August, 1988. On 11th December, 1989, the District Magistrate, Jalaun sought the permission of the State Government to allow him to grant permit to the petitioner during the pendency of this revision. It transpires that the petitioner was granted a short term lease for six months. The revision of the petitioner was allowed and the case was remanded to the State Government for decision. In paragraph 13 of his judgment, the Tribunal observed: From the submissions made by the petitioner as well as the State Government it appears that the State Government had notified making available the impugned area for grant of lease through applications No subsequent notification has been issued by the State Government that the area would be settled by auction. Therefore, it is difficult for us to accept this plea of the State Government that the State Government have decided to settle the area by auction and not through the procedure of applications. The Tribunal was, however, not able to decide the petition in the view that it is not possible for it to decide for want of details : firstly what would be the extent of the area for which the lease should be granted and secondly the policy of the State Government in respect was also not known and also that the exact matters relating to the status of the industry proposed to be set up by the petitioner was not known. The Tribunal had directed the State Government to decide the petition in the light of the observations made in the judgment after giving due opportunity and personal hearing to the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner was then heard by the State Government and the impugned order Annexure 17 was passed. In this order the State Government observed that under Rule 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred as Mineral rules) lease cannot be granted for an area more than 30 acres. The Government opined that the establishment of a block manufacturing unit could not be a sufficient ground to grant patta or licence on dead rent for an extensive area of 227.6 acres. On this ground petition of the petitioner for renewal of his licence was rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the Government policy there is no limit of 30 acres now. Besides this the Government has the right to relax the condition as to the area under Rule 68 of the rules. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Annexure 14 to the petition. In this annexure vide G.O. No. 6280/18 -12 -28 -200/77 dated 14th December, 1989 all the District Officers were directed by the Joint Secretary of Uttar Pradesh Government to grant extensive area to the licensee for development of minerals. The body of G.O. speaks that in exercise of powers under Section 15(1) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and under Rule 68 of Mineral rules the petitioner had fixed the minimum area to be allotted on a dead rent. In the schedule annexed to this writ petition District Jalaun was mentioned at sub -item No. 4 of the item No. 5 Moram'. The minimum area was mentioned as 50 acres. Thus at the time of passing the impugned area the Government had issued directive to all the District Officers to grant licence for not less than 50 acres, thus reliance to Rule 10 of the Mineral rules in the teeth of Annexure 14 was based on non -consideration of its own directives by the State Government. The Rule 10 of Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules reads as under: 10. Maximum area for which a mining lease may be granted. - -No person shall acquire in respect of any minor mineral, one or more mining lease covering a total area of more than thirty acres: Provided that if the State Government is of opinion that in the interest of mineral development it is necessary to do, it may, for reasons to be recorded permit any person to acquire one or more mining leases covering an area in excess of the aforesaid maximum of thirty acres.
(3.) THE provisio to this rule empowers the State Government to grant lease for an area in excess of the aforesaid maximum of 30 acres if for the reasons to be recorded the State Government consider it necessary to do so in the interest of minerals development. The State Government could not have gone beyond the direction of the Central Government as expressed in its revisional order, Annexure 11. The Central Government has directed the State Government firstly to assess if the petitioner really requires a mining lease and consequently if the petitioner really requires a lease then the extent of the area which would meet its need. Lastly the Central Government had directed the State Government to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of its policy.;