Om Prakash, J. - (1.) THE short question for consideration in this writ petition is whether lease deed dated 8th March, 1994, (Annexure '8' to the writ petitioner for carrying on mining operation was legally executed upto 30th September, 1994.
(2.) THE facts as briefly stated, are that an advertisement dated 7-8- 1993. for holding auction notifying; 10-9-1993 as date of auction for leasing out several areas in district Banda for excavation of sand for the period, commencing from 1- 10-1993 to 30-9-1994, was made in Nav Karam Yug a daily Hindi newspaper. For some reasons, the auction could not be held on -10-9-1993 and the same was held on 18-9-1993. In the said auction, the petitioner turned out to be the highest bidder in respect of Khand-7, His highest bid was provisionally accepted on 18-9-1993 itself and he made the requisite deposits on that day. Prior to 18-9-1993. a writ petition No. 30005 of 1993 was filed by one Subbash Chandra Dwivedi challenging validity of the auction notice dated 7-8-1993 and in the said petition, an interim order dated 17-9-1993 was granted stating that the auction proceedings may go on hut the bids would not be finalized till further orders The said writ petition was dismissed on 14-2-1994 and then the interim order stood vacated. In view of the interim order dated 17-9-1993. auction dated 18-9-1993 was hell subject to the condition that the bids would be finalized only after the said interim order was modified or vacated by the High Court. The auction was made under Chapter IV of the U. P. Minor- Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 ('the Rule' for short). All the tenders/bidders participated in the auction dated 18-9-1993 subject to that condition Immediately after the interim order stood vacated, the kids were finalized and the highest bid of the petitioner was accepted on 18-2-1994. The petitioner was also asked in the letter of acceptance by the; Collector Banda to take necessary steps for getting the lease deed registered. The petitioner purchased the requisite stamp papers and submitted the same to the Collector Banda seeking registration of the 'ease. The lease deed was then registered clearly stipulating that the lease would expire on 30th September, 1994. Having received a letter of acceptance dated 18-2-1994, the petitioner filed a writ petition no. Nil of 1994, which was finally disposed of by the Court on the same day saying that the petitioner may make a representation to She District Magistrate, Banda, and the same shall be decided within one month from the date of receipt of such representation by the said authority. After judgment dated 25-2-1994 (Annexure "7" to the writ petition), the petitioner got the lease deed registered on 3-3-1994 and thereafter filed objections on 26-4-1994 annexing a copy of the High Court judgment dated 25 -2-94 before the District Magistrate. Banda, which were rejected on 3-8-1994.
(3.) ON these facts, the petitioner seeks quashing of impugned order dated 3-8-1994 (Annexure '10" Co the writ petition) pissed by the District Magistrate, Banda and of the condition made in the lease deed dated 8-3-94 (Annexure "8" to the writ petition) 5hat the lease would be operative only upto 30-9-1994. Also the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent no. 1 to compute one year period of lease from 18-2-1994 that is the date of acceptance and thereby modifying the lease deed that the same would be operative upto 17-2-1995 and directing respondent no. 1 further not to interfere with the mining operation by the petitioner upto 17-2-1995 In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is averred though auction notice specified one year period of lease from 1-10- 1993 to 30-9-1994. the auction was held on 18-9-1993 with a clear stipulation that the bids would be finalized only after interim order dated 17-9-1993 stood vacated and, therefore, tenderers/bidders knew very well that mining operation would terminate on 30-9-1994 and the date of its commencement was dependent upon the interim order dated 17-9-1993 being vacated. It is. further, averred in the counter affidavit that the petitioner participated in the auction with full knowledge that the lease might not commence from the date, which was notified in the auction notice and that the lease would commence only after the interim order dated 17-9-1993 was vacated by the Court. In short, the plea of the respondents is that the petitioner having participated in the auction on 18-9-1993 with full knowledge of the interim order and the letter of acceptance having been sent in conformity with the auction notice, which clearly stated that the lease would terminate on 30-9- 1994, the contract as concluded between the parties was upto 30-9-1994 and that the petitioner having mads no protest about the date of termination of lease before the letter of acceptance was received by him. he cannot be permitted to raise an issue as to the period of lease.;