B.K. Roy and P.K. Jain, JJ. - (1.) Two-fold prayers have been made by the petitioners in this writ petition : (i) to quash the order dated 14.10.97 as contained in Annexure-10 by grant of writ of certiorari, (ii) to command respondent No. 2 to refund to them the amount of Rs. 10,62,250 as security and the excess amount of Rs. 3,45,083 deposited by them.
(2.) Their case is that on 21st April. 1995 respondent No. 2 held an auction of mining-area in which they participated ; that their offer of Rs. 1,27,47,000 was the highest in relation to group Aa of revenue area, which was accepted by respondent No. 2 ; that they also accepted the terms and conditions and deposited Rs. 62,250 as security and Rs. 10.62.250 as first instalment on 21st April, 1995 itself ; that a lease-deed was executed on 5.6.95, which was registered on 1.7.95 and was handed over to them on 11.7.95 ; that in order to carry out the mining operations and transportation of the minerals respondent No. 2 on 24.9.95 issued MM-11 in terms of Rule 70 of the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 ; that under the aforementioned circumstances they could start their mining operations after 24.9.95 : that this Court however, in Writ Petition No. 12730 of 1996. Raj Kumar Karanwal v. State of U. P., quashed the auction in question held on 21.4.95 and 22.5.96 and consequently, they were stopped from doing any mining operation by respondent No. 2 on 27.6.96 ; that the persons affected due to the orders passed by this Court filed applications before respondent No. 2 for refund of their amount on which respondent No. 2 vide his orders dated 22.1.97 [as contained in Annexure-1) and 14.10.97 (as contained in Annexure-2) allowed the applications of Kamlesh and Aashish Wadia and others ; that the petitioners filed successive applications dated 23.2.96, 24.9.96, 23.12.96 and 14.3.97 (as contained in Annexures-4 to 7 respectively) for refund of their amounts : that on 23.12.95 they also submitted their accounts (copy of which appended as Annexure-8) before respondent No. 2 showing quantity of minerals excavated by them from 24.9.95 ; that however, vide the impugned order respondent No. 2 rejected not only their claim but also directed them to pay amount of Rs. 7,08.167 failing which that amount has to be realised as arrears of land revenue which is wholly arbitrary and illegal and hence, this writ petition.
(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, sworn by the Deputy Collector, Haridwar. It has been stated, inter alia, that the petitioners were granted permission for mining operations by respondent No. 2 vide acceptance letter dated 22.4.95 which they received on that very day and started mining operation formally from that very day, i.e., 22.4.95 itself ; that it is a fact that after 27.6.96 they had not done mining operation ; that the applications filed by Kamlesh and Aashish Wadia related to group 'Da' and 'Sa' respectively and the amounts deposited by them were refunded on the recommendation of the Forest Department which did not allow their mining operations being situated in the forest area : that minus amount of Rs. 74,500 so far as Kamlesh Kumar was concerned ; that the order in question was passed wholly in accordance with law and the Rules ; that under Rule 29 (2) of the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession] Rules, 1963 the period of the mining lease shall be calculated from the date on which the bidder has received the acceptance letter ; and that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India besides having no force nor basis.;