Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sunil v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary, Industrial Development & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 17667 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 6997 (30 March 2006)


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).


Court No. 10

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17667 of 2006

Sunil .....Vs... State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble A.K. Yog, J.

Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Manoj Mishra, Advocate representing Respondent No. 4/Sheo Prakash Yadav.

There is no dispute that order of lease dated 3-3-2006 will loose its efficacy on expiry of one month i.e. on 3-4-2006.  We  have already reached 30th March, 2006 i.e. question of four days only.

We are informed that fresh Notification has been done under Rule 72, U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, as amended uptodate  and such notice by publication has been issued on 15-2-2006(Annexure-7 to the writ petition). Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that petitioner has applied against the said notice. In the above situation, we find that it will be a futile exercise to permit the petitioner to invoke our jurisdiction at this stage. We would, however, like to place on record Rules 52 and 53 of the aforesaid Rules, 1963 which read:

" 52. Application for grant of mining permit- An application for the grant of a mining permit shall be submitted in Form MM-8, in triplicate, o the District Officer or to such other authority who may be authorized by the State Government to grant such permit. It shall be accompanied by-

(i)a fee of Rs. 400.00; and

(ii)two copies of a cadastral survey map, or in case of area not covered by such survey two copies of topographical survey map, on a scale of at least 4"= 1 mile, on which the area applied for is clearly marked.

53. Disposal of application- The officer authorized to grant the permit may, after making such enquiries as may be deemed necessary, refuse to grant the permit or by an order granted for whole or a part of the area applied for and subject to such terms and conditions as the said officer may consider necessary:

   Provided that an application for the grant of a mining permit for such area which is already held under a lease or mining permit shall be deemed to be premature and shall be refused and the application thereon is paid shall be refunded."

In the present writ petition, petitioner contends that his application has been arbitrarily and malafide rejected inasmuch as he has submitted his application in order, as required under statutory Rules. On the other hand, we find in the impugned order dated 3-3-2006/Annexure-10 to the writ petition, it is mentioned that application of the petitioner was not annexed along with cadastral/topographical survey map as required under Rule 52(ii) of Rules, 1963. We find no provision under aforesaid Rules that in case application is defective, it shall not be accepted or entertained. If that be so, the transparency would require that if application is defective or lacks any statutory requirement, it should be intimated to the applicant at the time of its presentation. Otherwise also, if intention of the Legislature is not to accept and entertain a defective application, irrespective of the applicant being afforded opportunity to remove said defect, is not discernable from the aforesaid statutory Rules and if application of the petitioner was not in order (as mentioned in the above referred impugned order dated 3-3-2006), the same should have been rejected by making said objection forthwith without delay at the time of its presentation in order to avoid any confusion or doubt in the mind of public at large who came forward to submit such application. District Magistrate is directed to issue requisite direction under Rules 1963 that in case application is not in order, the same must be rejected forthwith then and there under intimation to the applicant and he should be required to endorse the same in person or said information be sent within 72 hours by RPAD to the concerned applicant. For this purpose, the applicant can be required to submit his ''self addressed envelope' along with stamp meeting RPAD charges also.

Here itself we may refer to Rule 6(2) of the Rules, 1963. We leave it at the discretion of the concerned competent authority to follow the above procedure or the procedure under Rule 6(2) of the Rules, 1963 in case an application is received with reference to Rule 52 of the aforesaid Rules, 1963.

Subject to the above observations, writ petition stands finally disposed of.

No order as to costs.



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


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 |

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