Binod Kumar Roy and R.K.Singh, JJ. - (1.) The petitioner, who is a partnership firm and carries on business of manufacturing and sale of bricks, has come up with a prayer to declare that the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act (67 of 1957) and the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 do not apply for extracting earth from the surface of the bhumidhari land vested and settled with it and to quash the Recovery Certificates dated 20.12.1995 and 17.9.1996 (as contained in Annexures-4 and 5 to the writ petition). A further prayer has been made to restrain the respondents from realising the royalty for the assessment years 1993-94. 1994-95. 1995-96 and 1996-97 from the petitioner as well as from taking any step against the petitioner.
(2.) Sri J.C. Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, by placing reliance on paragraph 7 of the decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. M/s. Vishkarma and Co. etc., JT 1993 (1) SC 448, contended that the reliefs claimed for are fit to be granted.
(3.) Sri P.K. Bisaria, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand contended that the questions raised stood squarely covered against the petitioner by a direct Division Bench judgment of our own High Court in M/s. Ram Brick Field and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 1986 ALJ 728, which has also been affirmed by the Supreme Court inasmuch as the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3581 of 1986 preferred against that judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 13.10.1986 and accordingly the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.;