words per minute
6
Aman_G
00:00
Speed
29. In this regard it may be relevant to take notice of the fact that State Government had issued a Government Order dated 31.05.2012 whereby the entire vacant mining area in the State of Uttar Pradesh was brought under Chapter IV of the Rules, 1963 with a direction that the mining leases after 31.01.2012, would be settled through e-tendering. The validity of the Government Order dated 31.05.2012 was considered in the case of Nar Narayan Mishra (supra), and while upholding the Government Order it was directed that the applications seeking grant of lease and/or renewal thereof pending prior to 31.05.2012 would be treated as rejected. The Government Order dated 31.05.2012 was subsequently considered in a number of other petitions, including Sukhan Singh Vs. State of UP & Ors.13 and the same view was reiterated. The Special Leave Petitions filed against the judgments in the case of Nar Narain Mishra and Sukhan Singh were dismissed by the Supreme Court.
30. It may be relevant to refer to the judgment in the case of Sulekhan Singh & Company Vs. State of UP & Ors.14 wherein the orders passed by the High Court quashing the mining leases on the ground that the said leases had been granted in violation of the Government Order dated 31.05.2012 and for the reason that mining leases could only be granted under Chapter IV of the Rules, 1963 by way of e-tendering, were sought to be questioned and the Supreme Court upon duly noticing the judgments in the case of Nar Narain Mishra and Sukhan Singh, dismissed the appeals.
31. The legal position, as it emerges is that once a notification has been issued under Rule 23(1) of Rules, 1963 making the provisions of Chapter IV of the Rules, 1963 applicable, no application referable to Chapter II is liable to be entertained. In this view of the matter also the claim of the petitioner for extension of the 'obstructed period' in respect of the lease which had been granted under Chapter II of the Rules, 1963, cannot be granted once a declaration has been made vide notification dated 09.01.2019 issued under Rule 23(1) making the provisions of Chapter IV applicable.
32. We may reiterate that the right to claim extension of the time period of the lease must either flow from statutory provisions or from the terms of the lease deed. In the instant case the lease having been granted for a period of three years i.e. w.e.f. 11.09.2009 to 10.09.2012, the order dated 21.09.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Banda rejecting the claim of the petitioner and other lease holders for grant of extension in respect of the obstructed period, cannot be faulted with.
36. Reference may also be had to the judgment of this Court in Anar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.18 wherein in the context of the mining permit under Rule 52-A of the Rules 1963, it was held that the time period for grant of mining permit having been provided in terms of sub-rule (3) thereof, no enlargement of the said time period could be granted.