ASHOK BHUSHAN,J. - (1.) THE petitioners, in all these writ petitions are claiming grant/renewal of mining lease of minor minerals in accordance with the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 hereinafter called the "Rules, 1963". In several writ petitions, there is challenge to the Government Order dated 31/5/2012 and subsequent Government Orders dated 02/7/2012, 05/7/2012, 26/7/2012 and 05/9/2012. The questions raised in all these writ petitions being inter-connected, all these writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) IN Writ Petition No.37725/2012, Nar Narain Mishra Vs. State of U.P. counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in which the State has also filed its written submission, hence the said writ petition is being treated to be the leading writ petition and reference to the pleadings in the said writ petition shall suffice to decide the controversy raised in all the writ petitions. Apart from noticing the fact that in the leading writ petition, facts in certain other writ petitions shall also be noted to fully appreciate all the issues raised in this bunch of writ petitions. Writ Petition No. 32828/2012, has been filed by Shailendra Singh praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, especially respondent no.2, to decide the mining lease renewal application dated 23/3/2011 in respect of Gata No. 2451 area 6.50 acre, situate in Village Jarar, Tehsil Naraini, District Banda. Petitioner, Shailendra Singh, claims to have been granted a mining lease on 16/10/2001, in the aforesaid plot for a period of 10 years. The petitioner is claiming a direction for deciding his aforesaid renewal application. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State in which reference has been made to the Government Order dated 31/5/2012, by which it is claimed that the entire area in the State has been declared to be settled by E-Tendering. A Government Order dated 05/9/2012, was also annexed clarifying the stand of the State regarding renewal application. It has been stated in the said Government Order that as and when the period of lease expires, the same shall be settled by E-Tendering. Copy of the notice dated 06/7/2012, has also been annexed along with the counter affidavit. In pursuance of which Government Order dated 31/5/2012, the District Magistrate, Banda has issued notice for grant of lease by E- tendering. Details of the area along with the names of mineral and reserved price has been mentioned in the notice. It has been further pleaded that the application of the petitioner for renewal has already been rejected and the plot with regard to which the petitioner had claimed right for renewal is covered by the notice dated 06/7/2012. While hearing the Writ Petition No.32828/2012, this court passed a detailed order on 31/7/2012, asking the State to clarify its stand by filing affidavit of Principal Secretary, Geology and Mining, U.P. Lucknow. Following is the order passed on 31/7/2012: "Heard Sri Birendra Singh and Sri Mukesh Prasad, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yashwant Varma appearing for the State. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to decide the mining lease renewal application dated 23.3.2011. Along with this writ petition, there are other writ petitions listed . In some of the petitions, there are prayer for grant of fresh lease under Chapter II of the U.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1963. The State Government has issued a Government Order dated 31.5.2012 which has been brought on record as Annexure-CA-1 to the counter affidavit. The subject matter of the Government Order is as follows: "Vishay: Pradesh Mein Balu, Moram, Bajari evam Bolder Ke Rikt Kshetron Ko Uttar Pradesh Up Khanij (Parihari), Niyamawali, 1963 Ke Adhyay-4 Ke Providhono Ke Antargat e-tendering Pranali Ke Madhyam Se Parihar Par Sweekreet Kiye Jane Ke Sambhandh Mein" The Government Order provides that with intent to bring more transparency and towards more revenue, it has been decided to declare all the vacant area bearing Sand, Moram, Bajari and Bolder in the State under Chapter IV to be settled by method of e-tendering. Para (2) of the Government order further states that all the Government Orders issued for grant of lease under Chapters II and VII are cancelled. However, in the next sentence of para (2), it has been stated that by earlier Government Order dated 1.11.2011, the District Magistrates were entitled to grant lease and renewal of lease at their level, which Government Order shall continue to operate. A plain reading of the Government Order indicates that the main purpose and object of the Government Order was to declare the vacant area under Chapter IV, that is, within the meaning of Rule 23 (1) of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. What was meant by continuing the Government Order dated 1.11.2011 and upto what extent is not very clear from the Government Order and has not been explained in the counter affidavit filed by the Director, Geology and Mining, U.P.Lucknow. After declaration of area under Rule 23(1) for auction lease by virtue of rule 23 sub-rule (3), the provisions of Chapter II and VI are inapplicable. Rule 23(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 is as follows: "On the declaration of the area or areas under sub-rule (1), the provisions of Chapters II, III and Vi of these rules shall not apply to the area or areas in respect of which the declaration has been issued. Such area or areas may be lease out according to the procedure described in this Chapter." It has been further stated in the affidavit that leases in respect of which an application for renewal has been made, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with the statutory provisions. Whether the areas with regard to which the period of lease has expired on the relevant date and renewal application is pending shall be area vacant or not, this question has to be answered by the State. Sri Yashwant Varma, prays for and is allowed two weeks' further time to file an affidavit of respondent no.1, i.e., Principal Secretary, Geology and Mining, U.P. Lucknow. List this petition on 22.8.2012."
(3.) SUBSEQUENT to the order of this court, detail counter affidavit has been filed. As noted above, in Writ Petition No.32828/2012, the only prayer pressed by the petitioner was for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2, the District Magistrate to decide the mining lease renewal application dated 23/3/2011. Now, the facts of the leading writ petition being Writ Petition No.37725/2012 are to be noted. The petitioner, Nar Narain Mishra was granted a mining lease under Chapter II of the Rules, 1963, on 17/5/2007, for a period of 3 years for an area known as Yamuna Zone No. 10, Plot No. 34A measuring 30 acres, P.S. Sarai Akil, District, Kaushambi. Petitioner made an application for renewal of the mining lease which is said to be pending. Petitioner has referred to notification dated 14/9/2006, issued by the Central Government in exercise of power conferred by sub-section (1) and Clause 5 (2) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. The said Notification directs that on and from the date of its publication, the required construction of new projects or activities or the expansion or modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification entailing capacity addition with change in process and/or technology shall be undertaken in any part of India only after the prior environmental clearance from the Central Government or, as the case may be, by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority.;