- (1.) Heard Miss. Pushpila Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Verma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. .
(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court against the notification dated 14.7.2005 and the notice dated 24.8.2005. The petitioner has alleged that as he is interested for the grant of lease in respect to Plot Nos. 204M and 205M situated in Village Dhaukhariya, Tehsil Ramnagar, District Barabanki, he submitted an application on 16.8.2005 before the District Magistrate, Barabanki, under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. The petitioner thereafter received a notice dated 24.8.2005 issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Barabanki, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the notice dated 24.8.2005, the petitioner was required to obtain the consent of the tenure holder, which is legally not permissible. She further submits that Rule 9-A, which was introduced by the State Government by 25th amendment, was later on deleted from the statute by 26th amendment dated 22.6.2004 and there is no provision under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 regarding the consent of the landholder before the grant of the lease by the competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1995 SC 858, State of Tamil Nadu v. M.P.P. Kavery Shetty and 1995 All LJ page 872, Dinesh Pratap Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and others .
(3.) Sri A.K. Verma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submits that there is no illegality in Clause - 3 of the notice dated 24.8.2005 which only provides whether the. petitioner has obtained the consent of the land holder or not in accordance with the Government Order. He has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1997 (4) SCC 559, Pallava Granites Industrial India (P) Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others . He further submits that till date the petitioner has not completed the required formalities as mentioned in the notice dated 24.8.2005.;