- (1.) Heard Sri M.D. Singh 'Sekhar', Senior Advocate assisted by Deo Prakash Singh, Sri Deobrat Mukherjee and Mrs Amrita Rai for the petitioners and Sri Raghvendra Singh, learned Advocate General assisted by Sri R.K.S. Chauhan for the State respondents.
(2.) This batch of writ petitions had been preferred challenging the validity of Rule 9A of the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules 1963 (1963 Rules). Various other reliefs were also sought in the writ petitions including a challenge to the Government Order dated 22 October 2014 which in turn had brought to an end a declaration dated 31 May 2012 mandating settlement of mining leases in the State of U.P by way of e-tender in terms of Part-IV of the 1963 Rules. These writ petitions were allowed on 3 April 2015 whereby the following operative directions were issued: "(I). The word "lease" as used in Rule 34 of the Concession Rules in the matter of making of the application for environmental clearance/approval of the mining plan may be read to mean "selected applicant" only and if required the State Government may make necessary amendments therein. (II). No mining lease under the Notification dated 22.10.2014 shall be executed by the State Government, unless there is an approved mining plan complete in all respect, as contemplated by Model Rules, 2010, prepared by a recognised qualified person and duly approved by the competent authority. Approval of the mining plan in writing is a condition precedent for execution of the mining lease. The deeming provision as contained in Rule 34 (4) is held to be bad and is quashed. (III). No mining operations can be done in the absence/contrary to the mining plan prepared by a recognised qualified person and approved by the competent authority, as contemplated by Model Rules, 2010 read with Rule 34 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules as amended upto date. (IV). Rule 9A, as introduced by 37th Amendments, is held to be bad being in conflict with Rule 23(3) of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1963. (V). All the notifications issued by the District Magistrate, included that dated 5th December, 2014, inviting applications from the prospective applicants in envelope-A and envelope-B cannot be legally sustained and are quashed. (VI). The State Government may lay down the time period for the selected candidate to make the application for approval of mining plan and for such approval being examined and decided in a time bound manner by the competent authority."
(3.) The State took the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court wherein initially the Special Leave Petitions were entertained and certain interim directions issued. By an order dated 22 November 2016, the matter was remitted for a hearing afresh in the following terms: "We have heard learned counsel for the parties for a considerable period of time and have also gone through the pleadings. We find during the hearing that a large number of issues have been raised both by the writ petitioners as well as by the State. Many of the issues that have been raised have been brought to our notice for the first time. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State says that certain aspects, which were mentioned in the counter affidavit filed in the High Court relating to payment of royalty on the dispatched minor minerals, have not at all been adverted to by the High Court. In view of the above, in our opinion, these matters require to be remitted to the High Court and reconsidered in the light of the submissions that have been made by learned counsel for the parties. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court without expressing any opinion on the averments of the case. The special leave petitions and writ petition are disposed of. The parties are at liberty to file an additional affidavit before the High Court within two weeks from today. List the matters before the High Court on 9th December, 2016 so that the High Court can decide when to take up the matters for final hearing. The interim orders passed by this Court from time to time will continue till the matters come up before the High Court. We make it clear that the High Court can modify the interim orders that have been passed by us, but after hearing learned counsel for the parties. The parties will maintain status quo till 9th December, 2016. Since the rights of several parties are involved and the revenue of the State is involved, we request the High Court to try and dispose of the matters as expeditiously as possible. Pending applications are disposed of." ;