Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RADHA CHAUDHARY & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECY. INDUSTRIAL DEVLP. & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Radha Chaudhary & Others v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Industrial Devlp. & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 52860 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 23 (1 January 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

          Court no.1

            Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 52860 of 2005

                        Radha Chaudhary and others

   versus

        State of U.P. And others.

     ---

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh,J.

Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi,J.

Thirteen persons were granted mining leases on 24.3.2001 for the period from 24.3.2001 till 23.3.2004. Those persons applied for renewal of their leases on 3.3.2004. The District Magistrate  on 23.3.2004  referred the matter to the State Government. The State Government vide its order dated 6.4.2004  asked the District Magistrate to send separate recommendations in respect of these thirteen persons. The District Magistrate sent individual recommendation accordingly on 15.4.2004. The State Government  by  order dated 13.5.2005 ordered  for renewal of the leases. Yet the leases of only six persons out of those thirteen persons were renewed  and the leases of seven persons  have not been renewed, hence, the present writ petition.

We have heard  counsel for the petitioners and the Standing counsel for the respondents.

In this petition, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and the writ petition is being  disposed of accordingly.

The Standing Counsel has submitted that there is a report dated 26.11.2004 and it is because of this report that the leases of the petitioners have not been renewed. According to the  Standing Counsel  notice dated 26.7.2005 was also issued  to the petitioners but the same has  not been replied so far and it is because of this notice also  that the leases have not been renewed.

We have considered  the submissions of the Standing Counsel. The report dated 26.11.2004 is of prior date to the order dated 13.5.2005. Copy of the alleged  notice dated 26.7.05 is not annexed with the counter affidavit. There is nothing on the record to show that order of the State Government  dated 13.5.2005 has been cancelled. This order still stands. In view of this, there is no justification for the District Magistrate not to renew the leases of the petitioners.

The District Magistrate is hereby directed to renew the leases of the petitioners within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, it would be open to the respondents to terminate the  leases in accordance with  law if there is any illegality.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

Dated:29.8.2005

RPP.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.