G.P.MATHUR,J. - (1.) THE petitioner was granted a mining lease to excavate sand for a period of 3 years from 28.10.1998 to 29.10.2001. Before the expiry of his lease, he made an application on 19.3.2001 for renewal of the lease for a further period of 3 years. The District Officer, Gorakhpur, by his order dated 1.10.2001 sanctioned renewal of lease for a further period of 3 years, which was to expire on 26.10.2004. Virendra Singh, respondent No. 6 moved an application before the State Government that in view of subsequent Government order dated 22.9.2001 the lease granted in favour of the petitioner on 24.10.1998 could not be renewed for a further period of 3 years. The State Government, thereafter, passed an order on 7.12.2001 by which the operation of the order dated 1,10.2001 passed by District Officer, Gorakhpur, was suspended. By the same order, the District Officer was directed to submit his comments on the application moved by Virendra Singh so that further action in the matter may be taken. Thereafter, the District Officer, Gorakhpur, passed an order on 14 -12.2001 directing that the petitioner shall not be permitted to excavate sand until further orders as the renewal of lease granted in his favour on 1.10.2001 had been suspended by the State Government, The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the order dated 7.12.2001 of the StateGovernment and the order dated 14.12.2001 of the District Officer, Gorakhpur.
(2.) IN exercise of power conferred by Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, the State Government made the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Sand is a minor mineral within the meaning of Rule 2(7) of the Rules. Rule 3 provides that no person shall undertake any mining operations in any area within the State of any minor mineral to which the Rules are applicable except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a mining lease or a mining permit granted under these Rules. Chapter II lays down the procedure for grant of mining lease and Chapter VI lays down the procedure for grant of a mining permit. Rule 6 provides for moving an application for grant of a mining lease and Rule 6A provides that an application for renewal of mining lease may be made at least six months before the date of expiry of the mining lease. Rule 8 lays down the manner of disposal of an application moved under Rule 6 for grant of a mining lease and under Rule 6A for renewal of a mining lease. Sub -rule (1) of Rule 9A, which has a bearing on the controversy in hand, reads as follows : '9A. Preferential right of certain persons in respect of sand, etc. - - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 9, in respect of mining lease for sand or morrum or bajari or boulder or any of these in mixed state exclusively found in the river bed, preference shall be given in the following order to a person or group of persons, whether or not incorporated who : (a) belong to socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, engaged in carrying on the occupation of excavation of sand or morrum as a professionand are resident of the same district in which the lease is applied for, is situate ; (b) have established or intend to establish the aforesaid minor mineral based industry in the State. Explanation. - -For the purpose of Clause (a) the persons belonging to socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, engaged in carrying on the excavation of sand or morrum as profession means Mallah, Kewat. Bind. Nishad, Manjhi, Batham. Dhiwar, Themar. Chai, Sorahia, Turha, Raikwar. Kaiwrat, Khulwat, Tiyar, Gaudia. Godia and Kashyap and includes such other persons as are specified as such by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette.' The petitioner. Katwaru, belongs to one of the castes mentioned in the Explanation and, therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of Rule 9A of the Rules. It is not in dispute that the original lease granted in his favour on 24.10.1998 and which expired on 23.10.2001 had been granted in view of his preferential right under Rule 9A of the Rules. The constitutional vires of Rule 9A and Rule 53A of the Rules was challenged in W.P. No. 256 (M/B) of 1997, Ram Chand v. State of V.P. and Anr. and the matter was referred to a Full Bench. The Full Bench by the judgment and order dated 27.3.2001 held that Rules 9A and 53A are ultra vires to the Constitution of India and the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. Thereafter, the State Government issued a Government order on 13.6.2001, copy of which has been filed as Annexure -6 to the writ petition. Para 3 of this Government order lays down that there would be no restrain or embargo on the mining leases which had been sanctioned/ executed before 27.3.2001. It further provided that there is no prohibition in entertaining applications for renewal of mining leases where thequestion of grant of preference does not arise. The State Government also filed special leave petition in Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Full Bench in Writ Petition No. 256(M/B) of 1997. It is stated in para 14 of the writ petition that on 10.9.2001, the following order was passed : 'Permission to file S.L.P. allowed. Since the validity of Rules 9A and 53A is subject -matter of consideration in this bunch of cases. Leave granted. Status quo as on today be maintained. Intervention applications are allowed.' Thereafter, the State Government issued another Government order on 22.9.2001 to the effect that in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, status quo be maintained.
(3.) SRI S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that in view of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court for maintaining status quo, the right of the petitioner to have his mining lease renewed cannot be taken away and, therefore, the impugned order of the State Government and also of the District Officer, Gorakhpur, is illegal.;