- (1.) U. P. Singh, J. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 6th December, 1994, contained in Annexure-7a of the writ petition, whereby, the Additional District Magistrate, Mau granted lease in favour of respondents No. 6 to 15, for excavating sand from the river Tons. He has also challenged the order passed by the Special Secretary, Depart ment of Heavy Industries, Government of U. P. , dated 23- 3-1995, whereby, the revision preferred by respondents Nos. 6 to 15, chal lenging the decision of the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, was al lowed.
(2.) WHILE challenging the order dated 6-12-1994, contained in Annexure-7a, whereby, the lease was granted in favour of respondents No. 6 to 15, it was contended that it was a grant of lease only in respect of Tehsil Sadar, District Mau, although, the notice dated 2nd November, 1994 was for the entire district; that it did not specify the area to be allotted; that it did not specify the quantity of the royalty to be paid nor the rate of royalty was constituted; that the order was passed by the Additional District Magistrate, who has no authority to do so and it was, accordingly, without jurisdic tions ; that the order granting lease had not been considered by the Committee, nor was it passed by the Chairman of the Commit tee, and that even if the notice dated 2-11-1994 be treated as valid, the last date for filing applications was 1-12-1994 and a large number of applications were pending from 2-12-1994 to 6-12- 1994, but till that date no meeting was held. The order dated 6-12-1994 was chal lenged by the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41476 of 1994 and the order passed thereon is Annexure-9 to this peti tion, by which, that petition was dismissed in view of the alternative remedy open to the petitioner to approach the Divisional Com missioner by filing an appeal under Rule 77 of the U. P. Minor Mineral (Concession Twentieth Amendment) Rules, 1994. The petitioner then approached the Divisional Commissioner, who, by his order contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition, can celled the order dated 5-12-1994, passed by the Collector, granting lease in favour of the respondents and it also cancelled the order dated 6-12-1994 passed by the Additional District Magistrate. The Commissioner directed the Collector to grant lease in ac cordance with the Rules. Aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner dated 17-2-1995, respon dents No. 6 to 15 preferred Revision before the State Government under Rule 78 of the U. P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules. The State Government allowed the revision by its order dated 23-3-1995, which is con tained in Annexure- 11, The Slate Govern ment considered each and even1 aspect of the matter on record and found that the lease granted in favour of respondents No. 6 to 15 was legal and valid and, the conten tions raised by the petitioner was legally unsustainable. It is an elaborate order, giving reasons for its conclusions, which are found to be valid and justified in the facts of the present case.
(3.) THE said order of the State Govern ment dated 23-3-1995 has been questioned in this writ petition on the ground that it is contrary to Rule 72 and the said order was passed due to political pressure. It was fur ther contended that since the Collector has now issued another notice on 24th March, 1995 (Annexure-12), for District Mau, in viting applications, therefore, the leases granted in favour of the respondents do not survive. It may be stated that in the present writ petition the impugned order dated 23-3-1995 (Annexure-11 to the petition), al lowing the revision of the respondents, was stayed by this Court on 21st April, 1995 and, since then, the respondents No. 6 to 15 had stopped their mining operations. Respon dents No. 6 to 15 thus, carried on mining operation only for a period of. about two months and the excavated sand, worth lacs of Rupees, are lying stored at the mining site.;