- (1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. The petitioner has moved this writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22-1-1996 passed by the respondent No. 1 (annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) and he also seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 not to allow the respondent No. 3 to to excavate "morum" as the renewal of permit dated 22-1-96 is bad in law and not in consonance with the Rule 55 of the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ).
(2.) THIS writ petition has arisen out from the following facts. Admittedly the petitioner was granted permit on 8-11-1995 for three months to excavate 45755 cubic meter "morum" on payment of royalty of Rs. 5,49,060 from 8-11-1995 to 7-2-1996, in area Koro Kanak, pargana Muttor, district Fatehpur. At the time of grant ing permit there were other applicants also who competed with the petitioner. It is alleged that on 6-1-1996 Mining Inspector inspected the area and found that Sri Gopi Nishad, respondent No. 3 had excavated 1908 cubic meter "morum" more than that he was permitted to excavate and the report was submitted on 10-1-1996 to the respondent No. 1. On 11-1-1996 an order was issued to the respondent No. 3 asking him to stop excavation immediately and deposit Rs. 22,896 for excess excavation of morrum than mentioned in the original permit. A copy of the aforesaid letter dated 11-1-1996 (annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) was also sent to the S. H. O. PS Lalauli, Fatehpur with a direction to stop the mining operation of Sri Gopi Nishad, respondent No. 3. The aforesaid letter was received by the respondent No. 3 on 12-1-1996. It appears that according to allegation in para No. 7 of the writ petition Sri Gopi Nishad stopped excavation as a result of police intervention on 12-1-1996. It is alleged that according to Rule 55 of the Rules ex cavation had been completed of the requisite quantity allowed in the original per mit. A new permit under Rule 55 or extension of the same could not have been allowed and as such the order dated 22-1-1996 (annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) allowing the respondent No. 3 by Zila Adhikari, Fatehpur, respondent No. 1 is illegal, arbitrary and collusive and deserves to be quashed. The respondent No. 3 filed counter-affidavit and stated that he had filed objections on 12-1-1996 against the reports of the mining Inspector and later on he also filed an application dated 12-1-1996 before the District Magistrate, Fatehpur to grant him mining permit vide annexure No. CA-1 and CA-2 of the counter-af fidavit. It is also alleged that mining permit was issued to respondent No. 3 for 10,000 cubic metres "morrum" on payment of royalty of Rs. 1,40,000 vide annexure No. CA-3 to the counter- affidavit and the respondent No. 3 deposited the amount and he is entitled to excavate morrum upto 7- 2-1996. The plea of respondent No. 1 that fresh application could not be invite as the period of three months has not expired as envisaged under Rule 55 of the Rules as it was to come to an end on 7-2- 1996. Since the Government was to suffer a loss to permit was given again for a month considering that the State would suffer a loss of huge royalty. The permit holder was allowed on the same permit upto 7- 2-96 to excavate more quantity of "morrum' on payment of royalty as per Rules. There is interesting development in this case that Rameshwar has filed an application that he has not filed the petition and nor engaged the counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has argued that the application has been filed by imposter so it should be rejected outrightly. The only short question for determination is the interpretation of Rule 55 of the Rules.
(3.) THE plea of the petitions is that once the excavation of requisite quantity ' of "morrum" is complete, permit expires and the maximum period for excavation is three months and if earlier it is excavated new permit cannot be issued or THE permit holder cannot be allowed to excavate more, the submission of the counsel for the respondent is that even more quantity has been excavated than mentioned in the original permit given to the original permit holder. Even then the permit can be renewed within three months. We are afraid to agree with the counsel for the respondent. We are of the opinion that renewal will not be in public interest and against the Rules. THEre are two contingencies laid down in the Rule i. e. the permit so issued shall be valid until the date of the expiry of permit specified in the period or till such date when the permitted quantity of "morrum" is removed whichever is earlier. On a plain interpretation of the rule it is clear that if the quantity is ex cavated earlier than three months the permit expires. THE Rule envisages that outer limit is three months for excavation or the "morrum" granted in the permit and no other interpretation can be put. THEre is rule under Section 27-A of the Rules for procedure of grant of lease by tender. Tb understand more clearly Rule 27-A of the ules quoted with advantage: "27-A Procedure for grant of lease by tender.- (1) In respect of an area or areas declared under sub-rule (1) of Rule 23, as area for grant of lease by tender the following shall be the procedure ; (i) THE District Officer or the Committee shall at least thirty days before the last date of submission of tenders, invite tenders by publishing a tender notice in a daily Hindi Newspaper having circulation in the district, in which the area or areas is/are situate. THE tender notice shall contain the term and conditions of the lease and the details of area or areas alongwith the last date and time up to which and the place where the tenders may be submitted. (ii) Copies of tender notice shall also be put up on the Notice Board at the office of the District Officer and at some convenient place close to area. * * * Rule 27 lays down procedure loi grant of lease by auction. It is quoted with advantage : "27. Procedure for grant of lease by auction.- In respect of an area or areas declared under sub-rule (1) of Rule 23 as areas for grant of lease by auction the following shall be the procedure: (a) THE District Officer or the Committee authorised by the State Government under Rule 71 hereinafter referred to as the Committee, shall at least thirty days before the date of auction, give notice in the manner given below indicating the date, time and place of the action. " THEse rule safeguards the interest of the public money and fair opportunity is given to future bidders or prospective tenderers. In public contract/tenders every body has a right to bid or offer a tender, if he fulfills the conditions. The Supreme court has laid down in catena of authorities right from Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 : AIR 1979 SC 1628, held that: ". . . . . . . the Government is not like a private individual who can pick and choose the person with whom it will deal, but the Government is still a Government when it enteres into contract or when it is administering largesse and it cannot, without adequate reason, exclude any person from dealing with it or take away largesee arbitrarily. ";