- (1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. This order will dispose of the above two writ petitions as common question of facts and law is involved in these petitions.
(2.) THE petitioner has sought a direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30-9-1992 (Annexure- 3 to the writ petition) received by the petitioner on 15-10-1992 passed by respondent No. 3 which relates to the cancellation of mining lease under Rule 29 of the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 as it did not carry out the condition stipulated in that rule. The brief facts on which these petitions have arisen are as under : In the month of March 1992, auction took place under the orders of respondent No. 2 for the grant of mining rights under the provisions of U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) in certain plots situate in village Sagauli, Tehsil Garautha, district Jhansi for extracting stone blast. It is further alleged by the petitioner that according to Rule 29 of the Rules, the lease deed in respect of the auction in Form MM-6 has to be executed within one month of the receipt of the notice by the bidder. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not received the order of acceptance. The petitioner further alleged that he deposited on 26-3-1992 a sum of Rs. 6500 towards the lease money in the treasury. The petitioner also met the mining clerk and handed over Rs. 1675 for the purchase of necessary non-judicial stamps for the purpose of registration of the lease deed. The lease deed was duly typed and on 8-6-1992, the petitioner and respondent No. 4 on behalf of the Government of Uttar Pradesh signed the same. It was registered by the Sub-Registrar, Garautha on 23-7-1992 carrying out the formalities in Form MM-6 incor porated in the lease deed. According to the petitioner, after the grant of the lease, he invested a sum of Rs. 45,000 in the excavation work in plot No. 732 and also got blasting operations done on the site. To his surprise, the petitioner received an order dated 30-9-1992 passed by the respondent No. 3 letter of Naib-Tehsildar dated 15-10-1992 (annexures-3 and 4 to the writ petition), regarding the alleged violation of rule 29. It is also alleged that the cancellation order dated 30-9-1992 (annexure-3) is against the principles of natural justice and it is not warranted by law as it is arbitrary and has prayed for quashing of the same. It may be mentioned that Writ Petition No. 43558 of 1992 was dismissed on 28-10-1992 but again the said order was recalled on 12-12-1992 by this Court.
(3.) THE respondents in the counter-affidavit have alleged that the petitioner did not comply with the provision of Rule 29 and the lease deed was cancelled on 30-9-1992. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that the petition deserve to be accepted on the following grounds :;