- (1.) OM Prakash, J. The short question for consideration in this writ petition is whether availability of the area for grant of lease in respect of minor minerals under the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession ). Rules, 1963 (briefly, the Rules) was validly notified by impugned notice, dated 24-9-1994 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) as envisaged by sub-rule (1) of Rule 72, inserted in the Rules by the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) (Twentieth Amendment) Rules, 1994, published in Gazette, dated August 27, 1994.
(2.) THE impugned notice states that a declaration under Rule 24 of the Rules in respect of plain sand/moram available in the bed of rivers-Bejan/tbns-situate in district Allahabad, was made and published in the Gazette, dated 27-9-1994 and as per that declaration the aforesaid area would become available for granting lease with effect from October 1, 1994 under Chapter II of the Rules. The entire argument of the petitioner revolves around the interpretation of Rule 72 (1) of the Rules, which runs as follows : "72 (1 ). If any area, which was held under a mining lease or reserved under Section 17-A of the Act, becomes available for re-grant, the District Officer shall notify the availability of the area through a notice inviting applications for grant of mineral concessions specifying a date, which shall not be earlier than thirty days from the date of nonce and giving description of such area and a copy of such notice shall be displayed on the notice-board of his office and shall also be sent to the Tehsildar of such area and the Director. " (Emphasis supplied ). It is averred by the petitioner that availability of an area for granting lease within the meaning of Rule 72 (1) of the Rules is required to be notified through a notice which shall not be earlier, than thirty days and that the impugned notice, dated 24-9-1994 having declared the availability of the aforesaid area with effect from October 1, 1994 is not of thirty days within the Rule 72 and hence, is invalid. On the other hand, the contention of the Standing Counsel is that a notice of thirty days as contemplated under Rule 72 of the Rules, is not referable to an area which has become available for granting a lease as a result of declaration made under Rule 24. It is submitted by him that a notice of thirty days as envisaged by Rule 72 (1) is required only in respect of that area which was under a lease, granted under Chapter II or under a lease by auction, granted under Rule 23, falling in Chapter IV, or where the area reserved under Section 17-A of the, Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, has become available for re-grant. The submission of the Standing Counsel is that the declaration under Rule 24 was made in the Gazette, dated August 27, 1994 clearly stating that. the area would become available for grant Qf lease under Chapter II with effect from October 1, 1994 and, therefore, the prospective applicants had the notice of more than thirty days and no further notice as envisaged by Rule 72 (1) need be given in such cases.
(3.) THE submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 72 (1) does not make distinction between two types of applicants- (i) those who want to apply for grant of lease under Chapter II upon the expiry of an earlier lease granted under that Chapter, or upon the expiry of a lease envisaged by Rule 23 under Chapter IV, and (ii) those who want to apply in respect of an area which is denotified by a declaration, made under Rule 24. His submission in short, is that Rule 72 (1) refers to a mining lease and that a lease either granted under Chapter II upon the (sic) expiry of an existing lease or a lease granted upon the expiry of a lease, envisage by Chapter IV or a lease granted in respect of an area for which a declaration is made under Rule 24, are all mining lease and there is no difference between them except that they are granted under different modes. It is, therefore, urged that thirty ' days notice is uniformly required under Rule 72 (1) for ail types of such lease. We find' substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The subtle distinction made by the Standing Counsel, does not persuade us to hold that no notice of thirty days is required for declaring the availability of an area for grant of lease in respect of which a declaration was made under Rule 24. Simply because the declaration made under Rule 24 which was published in the Gazette, dated August 27, 1994 stated that the area which was notified under sub-rule (1) of Rule 23, was withdrawn with effect from October 1, 1994 it cannot be said, that the notice of thirty days as envisaged by Rule 72 (1) was in built in the said declaration.;