- (1.) This petition has been filed by one Jagdish Prasad Nishad, praying for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing four orders, collectively filed as Annexure 1, issued by the State Government dated 4.12.2012, bearing nos.3558, 3559, 3557 and 3599, whereby respondent nos.4 to 7 have been allowed to carry on mining activity for the obstructed period of their lease. Further relief claimed by the petitioner is to command the respondent authorities to restrain respondent nos.4 to 7 from carrying on any mining activity pursuant to the aforesaid four impugned orders, filed as Annexure 1. Lastly, it has been prayed that the respondent authorities be directed to settle the areas in question afresh in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 1963 Rules).
(2.) In para 5 of the petition it has been stated that the respondent nos.4 to 7 were granted mining lease for a period of three years in the year 2010 and the respective lease period is given as follows- "for respondent no.4- from 04/1.2010 to 03/01/2013 for respondent no.5- from 02/2.2010 to 01/02/2013 for respondent no.6- from 22/1.2010 to 21/01/2013 for respondent no.7- from 18/1.2010 to 17/01/2013"
(3.) The challenge to the impugned orders, extending the period of mining activity is firstly that the State Government had no competence or authority under the 1963 Rules framed under the powers conferred under Mines Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 1957 Act). The petition also contains some averments to the effect that the petitioners are using machines for their mining work which is not otherwise permitted under law, and in particular in view of the judgment of the Apex Court dated 27.02.2012, passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.19628 and 19629 of 2009, Deepak Kumar etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Others etc.;