- (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 22-08-2005 (Annexure VIII) by which the pe titioner's application for renewal of lease dated 14-11-2005 has been re jected and Government Order dated 31-03-2006 (Annexure VII) to the writ petition.
(2.) BY order dated 31-03-2006, the application of the petitioner for renewal of lease for mining the minerals from his own land has been-refused in com pliance of the Government Order dated 22-08- 2005. The Government has taken a decision not to grant or renew any lease or licence for extracting / min ing the minerals for the reason that the land owned by the private owners at the bank of the river during the rainy season, the soil of the land in the rainy season recede to river and in that proc ess the area of the land becomes full of river water and the minerals flowing in the river water are dumped over such land and the private owners of the land when get lease for extracting or mining such minerals, they also extract/mine much excess minerals from the river bed which is in violation of the Uttaranchal Up Khaniz Parihar Niyamavali, 2001 and this process also cause huge loss to the revenue. The Government Order dated 22-08-2005 aims to seek the object enshrined un der clause (b) of Article 39 of Consti tution of India. This Government Order is a law within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution of India as it is a direction not to issue any licence in respect of the land mentioned in the Government Order. The challenge of this Government order on the ground of violation of Article 14 and 19 is barred by the provisions of Article 31-C of the Constitution of India as the Government Order gives effect to the public policy contained in Article 39 of the Constitution of India. So far as the challenge of the Government Order on the ground of violation of Article 21 is concerned, since Article 14 and 19 of the Consti tution of India is not attracted and Ar ticle 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be applied alone in the facts and circumstances of this case. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. " No doubt that the source of livelihood also has been held to mean life under Arti cle 21 of the Constitution of India by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the series of decisions, but by the Government Or der the source of livelihood has not been taken away without the procedure prescribed by law. Under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regu lation) Act, 1957, the power has been conferred on the State Government by notification in the official gazette to make rules for regulating the grant of (quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions) and for purposes connected therewith and accordingly the State of Uttaranchal notified the Uttaranchal Minor and Mineral Conces sion Rules, 2001. This impugned order specifically refers that the activities of carrying on extracting/mining of the land at the bank of the river, minerals also were taken out from the riverbed and which is in aid of Uttaranchal Mi nor and Mineral Concession Rules, 2001.
(3.) THEREFORE, this Government Or der fills up the gap which is not specifi cally provided under the Uttaranchal Mineral Concession Rules, 2001. Hence, it cannot be said that the Gov ernment Order is in violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India. Thus, we hold that the Government Order dated 22-08- 2005 is perfectly legal and valid. In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and accord ingly is dismissed in-limine. No order as to costs. .;