ASHOK PAL SINGH,J. - (1.) FOR grant of mining lease of the area in question (being Khand A-4 sitauated in village Adhawal, District Fatehpur) a notification was issued by the District Magistrate/District Officer on 25.09.2006. In total seven applications were received which included that of the petitioner Jumman Ali and the respondent no.5 Shailendra Singh. On examination of the applications, the petitioner as well as respondent no.5 were issued notice on 15.11.2006 under Rule 6(2) of the U.P. Mines and Minerals Concessions Rules 1963 for removal of defects in their applications within one week. Then on 28.06.2007 a recommendation was made by the office of the District Officer recommending that respondent no.5 Sri Shailendra Singh be granted the lease on his production of the character certificate issued by the District Magistrate and completing certain other formalities. On 07.03.2008 the State Government approved the application of the petitioner for grant of mining lease subject to the respondent no.5 producing the character certificate. Pursuant thereto the District Magistrate vide his order dated 19.03.2008 accepted the application of the petitioner for grant of mining lease to the respondent no.5 on his depositing 1/4th of the dead rent which came to Rs. 1,34,918/- as well as another sum of Rs. 1,34,918/- towards security i.e. total Rs. 2,69,836/- within a period of one week. In compliance of such direction the respondent no.5 deposited the said amount on 25.03.2008.
(2.) AFTER the grant of approval by the State Government in favour of respondent no.5, the petitioner, whose application was not accepted, filed a writ petition no. 15949 of 2008 challenging said approval dated 07.03.2008. The said writ petition was dismissed as premature as no order for grant lease in favour of the respondent no.5 had been passed by the District Magistrate. However, it was left open to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition in case any order was passed by the District Magistrate for grant of lease in favour of the respondent no.5. Now after the order was passed by the District Magistrate for grant of lease on 19.03.2008, the petitioner filed this writ petition with the prayer for quashing the order dated 07.03.2008 whereby an approval has been accorded by the State Government and also order dated 19.03.2008 of the District Magistrate directing for grant of lease in favour of the respondent no.5. We have heard Sri Sabhajeet Nishad, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent and Sri Ramesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 and have perused the record. Although, Sri Nishad, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several grounds in the writ petition but emphasis has been laid by him on the issue of non submission of the requisite character certificate by the respondent no.5. It is contended that since the respondent no.5 had not filed the character certificate of the District Officer within the time granted by the District Officer under Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1963, the application of the petitioner could not have been considered.
(3.) UNDISPUTED facts are that on the application of the petitioner and the respondent no.5 having been received by the District Officer on 26.10.2006, a notice was issued to the petitioner as well as respondent no.5 on 15.11.2006 for removal of certain defects. It is also not disputed that by the said order the respondent no.5 was required to furnish the character certificate within one week of the issuance of the said letter. It is also not disputed that the character certificate, which was furnished by the respondent no.5 was issued by the Superintendent of Police and not by the District Officer. It is also not disputed that the application of the respondent no.5 was considered and the approval was granted on 07.03.2008 by the State Government and order passed by the District Magistrate on 19.03.2008 for grant of mining lease in favour of the respondent no.5 without the respondent no.5 having filed the character certificate issued by the District Officer till such time.;