RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) Heard Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shashank Singh learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Shukla learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
(2.) The petitioner is holding a mining lease. By instituting these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India he has assailed Government Order dated 16.2.2010 whereby the Assistant Geologists, Mining Officers and Mining Inspectors posted in the districts have been authorized to lodge criminal complaints in the competent court of law and first information reports in respect of offences under the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 and the U.P. Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2002.
(3.) The primary submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Mathur while impeaching the impugned Government Order dated 16.2.2010 is that no such authorization by the Satte Government could have been made except by way of notification to be published in the official gazette and further that such notification having been issued ought to have been placed before both the houses of the State Legislature as per the requirement of section 26 and 28 of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. His submission, thus, is that neither the impugned Government Order dated 16.2.2010 was published in the official gazette nor the same was placed before both the houses of legislature, which would made the impugned Government Order inoperative being illegal. Sri Mathur has accordingly stated that any criminal complaint lodged by the officers mentioned in the Government Order dated 16.2.2010 would not be cognizable by the court concerned.;