- (1.) WE have heard Sri C.L. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ashish Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the States respondents.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Although rejoinder affidavit is not available on record, Sri C.L. Pandey has very fairly supplied the office copy of the same.
(3.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 21.05.2004 passed by the State Government and as contained in Annexure -15 to the writ petition and the order dated 07.06.2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Sonebhadra as contained in Annexure -16 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the impugned orders has submitted that the application made by the petitioner for renewal of his lease was erroneously rejected and as a consequence thereof the District Magistrate has passed the order dated 07.06.2004 and rejected the application of the petitioner for extension of his lease period. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had applied for mining lease of lime stone under the provisions of Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1957), wherein Section 8 clearly provides that the maximum period for which a mining lease may be granted shall not exceed 30 years, however, the proviso to Section 8(1) of the Act further provides that the minimum period for which any such mining lease may be granted shall not be of less than 20 years. He has referred to the mining lease filed as Annexure -1 to the writ petition and states that clearly the grant of mining lease under the provisions of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 1963 Rules) was erroneous hence the grant of mining lease for the period of 5 years was illegal. He submits that the said period had expired and the petitioner had filed an application for renewal which was illegally rejected by the impugned order. He has further stated that in the absence of a notification under the Wild Life Protection Act the lease of the petitioner could not be canceled hence was liable to be renewed. According to him there is no notification even under the Forest Act and the Settlement Officer has excluded this area from the Forest Act.;