# Chandrakant Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 519 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2023-12-01 - **Case number:** Writ C No. 33253 of 2023 - **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Shekhar B. Saraf - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandrakant-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50899 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Uttar Pradesh Minerals(Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules 2018The petitioner was granted a storage license for one year which was renewedthe petitioner applied for another renewal-the District Magistrate denied the renewal-Held, the court found that the petitioner was entitled for two year limit from the initial grant as the district magistrate misinterpreted Rule 9 of the 2018 Rules-to compensate for the delay caused by litigation, the court extended the license validity by six months beyond 8 March 2024.(Para 1 to 11) The writ petition is allowed. .( E-6) List of cases cited: ## Text 2 All. Chandrakant Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 519 Others (supra) and also the provisions of the MDG and terminated the dealership in arbitrary manner. Applying the well settled principles of law as enunciated in the judgments mentioned above to the facts of the case, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 37. For the aforesaid reasons, both the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned show cause notice dated 04.01.2021; order of termination dated 15.11.2021; impugned appointment letter dated 15.01.2022 as well as the notice/letter dated 26.03.2022 are hereby quashed. A mandamus is issued to the respondents to forthwith restore the agreement dated 10.03.2004 and to restore the supply of the petitioner's RO within two months from today. ---------- (2024) 2 ILRA 519 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. Writ C No. 33253 of 2023 Chandrakant Pandey ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Arvind Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Uttar Pradesh Minerals(Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules 2018The petitioner was granted a storage license for one year which was renewedthe petitioner applied for another renewal-the District Magistrate denied the renewal-Held, the court found that the petitioner was entitled for two year limit from the initial grant as the district magistrate misinterpreted Rule 9 of the 2018 Rules-to compensate for the delay caused by litigation, the court extended the license validity by six months beyond 8 March 2024.(Para 1 to 11) The writ petition is allowed. .( E-6) List of cases cited: 1. Beg Raj Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors..(2003)AIR SC 833 (Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J. & Hon'ble Shekhar B. Sarraf, J.) 1. The petitioner was granted a storage licence upon his making an application on 16.1.2021 for a period of one year. The licence as was granted to the petitioner under the Uttar Pradesh Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 2018") was to expire on 15.1.2022 and, therefore, he applied for the renewal even before the licence expired on 15.1.2022. 2. The petitioner on 31.12.2021 had, as mentioned above, applied for the renewal for a period of one year and the authorities also renewed the licence on 7.1.2022 till 7.3.2023. When the licence was renewed on 7.1.2022, the renewal was to be effective with effect from 8.3.2022 for a period of one year. When again the licence expired on 7.3.2023 the petitioner again applied for its renewal for a period of one year on 24.11.2022. This licence 520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES renewal application when was placed before the District Magistrate, he enquired from the Geological Department as to whether the licence could be renewed again for a period of another one year. 3. On 3.7.2023, the Director of Geological Department advised the District Magistrate relying upon the Rule 9 of the Rules, 2018 that the licence could be renewed only once. Thereafter the District Magistrate on the advice received from the Director of the Geological Department passed the impugned order on 6.9.2023 saying that as per the Rule 9 of the Rules, 2018, the licence could not be renewed, as it was earlier renewed once. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed this order on the basis of the fact that renewal of the licence as per Rule 9 of the Rules, 2018, could be done for a period of two years. He has submitted that there was no embargo as to how many times an application could be moved for nenewal within those two years. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, states that the licencee could move for renewal any number of times in a period of two years but the extension could not exceed two years. 6. Since learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Rule 9 of the Rules, 2018, the same is being reproduced here as under: "9. Renewal of Licence. - (1) The licence can be renewed for a maximum period of two years subject to the condition that all the terms and condition have been complied with. (2) In case the renewal of licence is granted, the security money already deposited by the licensee, if valid, shall be accounted for as the security deposit for the renewal of licence. (3) The period of renewal of licence shall commence from the date of the expiry of the licence under renewal." 7. Learned Standing Counsel, however, in reply has submitted that the renewal could be made only once and if the petitioner in his first application which he had moved on 31.12.2021 did not pray for the renewal of the licence for a period of two years then he had lost the opportunity to get the licence renewed for the second time. He submits that the petitioner had foregone the right to get the licence renewed after he had earlier made the application. 8. Learned Standing Counsel, therefore, supported the impugned order and submitted that the writ petition be dismissed. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the District Magistrate erred in saying that the licence could not be renewed twice even if the licence was being renewed for only two years after the initial grant. Initially when the licence was granted it was to expire on 15.1.2022. Subsequently the petitioner had applied for a renewal on 24.11.2022 for its renewal with effect from 8.3.2022 and the renewal was done till 7.3.2023. We definitely hold that the petitioner had every right to get his licence renewed till 7.3.2024 i.e. till the time when two years period of renewal expired. 10. Under such circumstances, the order dated 6.9.2023 passed by the District Magistrate is set aside. The District Magistrate is directed to issue a renewal to 2 All. Saurabh Kalani Vs. Stressed Asset Stabilisation Fund, Mumbai & Ors. 521 the petitioner on the application which he had moved on 24.11.2022. Since a lot of period has elapsed because of the litigation the petitioner had to undergo because of the order dated 6.9.2023, we direct that the petitioner's licence shall be effective for six more months after the expiry of the licence on 8.3.2024. This we hold on the basis of the judgement of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2003 SC 833 : Beg Raj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, stands allowed. ---------- (2024) 2 ILRA 521 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.02.2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J. Writ C No. 35362 of 2023 Saurabh Kalani ...Petitioner Versus Stressed Asset Stabilisation Fund, Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Veerendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for the Respondents: Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Civil Procedure Code,1908Order 7- Rule 11-Limitation Act-Section 3(1)-DRT, Jabalpur rejected the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, claiming the original application was time barred-DRAT, Allahabad disposed of the appeal without setting aside the DRT's order but allowed the petitioner to raise limitation issues at the final hearing-Held, a plaint can only be rejected if it appears from its statements that the suit is barred by law, including limitation-the limitation issue is generally a mixed question of law and fact requiring trial for proper adjudication-The Tribunal's observation that the application was not barred by limitation does not operate as res judicata-The court found the appellate Tribunal's order correct-Petition dismissed with a direction to the DRT to decide the limitation issue during trial as per the appellate tribunal's instructions.(Para 1 to 29) The writ petition is disposed of. .( E-6) List of cases cited: 1. T.Arivandandam Vs T.V. Satyapal(1997) 4 SCC 467 2. Saleem Bhai Vs St. of Mah.(2003) 1 SCC 557 3. Kamala Vs K.T. Eshwara(2008) 12 SCC 661 4. Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs Syed Jalal (2017) 13 SCC 174: (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 602 5. Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs Hemant Vithal Kamat & ors..(2021) 9 SCC 99 6. Ramesh B Desai & ors.. Vs Vipin Vadilal Mehta & ors..(2006) 5 SCC 638 7. P.V Guru Raj Raddy & anr.. Vs P. Neeradha Reddy & ors..(2015) 8 SCC 331 8. U.O.I. & anr.. Vs British India Corp. Ltd. & ors.. (2003) 9 SCC 505 9. Gannmani Anasuya & ors.. Vs Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary & ors.. (2007) 10 SCC 296 10. Noharlal Verma Vs Distt Co-op. Central Bank Ltd Jagdalpur (2008) 14 SCC 445 (Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.