# M/s Manali Vintrade Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 697
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-10
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 26588 of 2023
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Manoj Baja
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-manali-vintrade-pvt-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49512
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals
(Concession) Rules, 1963-Petitioner had
applied for a license/permit- petitioner's tender
was accepted a permit was granted- permit
itself provided that during the monsoon season
no mining would be done- petitioner could not
work because of the intervening litigation which
was initiated in the National Green Tribunal-also
suffered financially- impugned order virtually
prohibits the petitioner from further mining-the
petitioner be refunded the amount of royalty for
the period he did not work. W.P. allowed. (E9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 All. M/s Manali Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
697
against the person belonging to Scheduled
Caste community, the entire plot shall not
be vest with the State, whereas only part of
the plot which has been put to transfer in
contravention of the provisions defined
under Section 98 of U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 and provisions available in Rule 103
of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, shall
vest with the State but at the same time,
other left out portion of the same plot, shall
remain with the recorded tenure holder
belongs to Scheduled Caste community.

9. In view of the abovementioned
facts and legal grounds, the order dated
30.10.1991 passed by respondent no.2 and
the order dated 06.03.2023 passed by
respondent no.1 are being modified to the
extent that only plot no.3414/1 situated at
Village Itawan, Tehsil Rajapur, District
Chitrakoot, shall be vested in the State but
the plot no.872M shall be intact in favour
of the petitioners as bhumidhar with non
transferable rights.

10. The instant petition is partly
allowed accordingly.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 697
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Writ-C No. 26588 of 2023

M/s Manali Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Swati Singh, Sri Birendra Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals
(Concession) Rules, 1963-Petitioner had
applied for a license/permit- petitioner's tender
was accepted a permit was granted- permit
itself provided that during the monsoon season
no mining would be done- petitioner could not
work because of the intervening litigation which
was initiated in the National Green Tribunal-also
suffered financially- impugned order virtually
prohibits the petitioner from further mining-the
petitioner be refunded the amount of royalty for
the period he did not work. W.P. allowed. (E9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Vijay Kumar Dwivedi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.28916 of 2016

2. Beg Raj Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. JT 2002
(10) SC 417

3. Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Goa Foundation
& ors., AIR 2020 SC 4870

4. Dharmendra Kumar Singh Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., (2021) 1 Supreme Court Cases 93

5. Vijay Kumar Dwivedi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.28916 of 2016

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.
&
Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.)

(1) The petitioner had applied for a
license/permit when an advertisement was
issued inviting E- tenders under Rule
23(2)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Minor
Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. When
the petitioner's tender was accepted a
permit was granted to him for six months
on payment of Rs.2,77,20,000/-. The
mining was to commence on 09.05.2022
and end on 08.01.2023. The permit itself
provided that during the monsoon season
698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for the months of July, August and
September no mining would be done.

(2) In the meantime, one Dileep Singh
approached the National Green Tribunal
and filed an Original Application being
Original Application No.319 of 2022
(Dileep Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others)
and alleged that the petitioner did not have
a
proper
environmental
clearance
certificate. To begin with the Green
Tribunal on 9th May, 2022 directed that no
mining activities were to be done by the
petitioner at the mining site. This order,
however, merged in the final order of the
Green Tribunal which on 1st July, 2022,
while disposing of the original application
provided that the State Environmental
Impact
Assessment
Authority,
Uttar
Pradesh (S.E.I.A.A.) had to revisit the
environmental clearance as was issued to
the petitioner within a period of two
months. It had also observed that pending
such consideration the interim order, which
was earlier granted on 9th May, 2022
would
continue.
Ultimately,
the
environmental clearance was given to the
petitioner on 14.05.2023. The District
Magistrate thereafter concluded that since
the petitioner had as per the permit dated
09.05.2022 worked for only nine days, he
be permitted to work for the remaining five
months and 21 days and therefore, granted
him the permission from 16.05.2023 to
06.02.2024 to continue with the mining
work. He, however, withdrew this order by
a subsequent order dated 20th May, 2023
relying upon the order of the High Court
passed in Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
No.28916 of 2016, Vijay Kumar Dwivedi
vs. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

(3) Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has
approached this Court and has prayed for the
quashing of the order dated 20.05.2013.
Alternatively he had prayed that he be
allowed to excavate for the period he had not
worked i.e. for five months and 21 days. Still
further he has prayed that if work for that
period could not be given to him then the
proportionate royalty be returned to him with
interest.

(4) Contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the ground as was
taken by the District Magistrate in the order
dated 20th May, 2023 had no legs to stand as
subsequent to the passing of the interim
orders in Vijay Kumar Dwivedi's case, the
State
Government
itself
had
issued
Government order dated 14th August, 2017,
which was followed by another Government
Order dated 23rd May, 2020, wherein the
State Government had laid down the
procedure for E-tendering and therefore, the
embargo as was put by the orders in the PIL
had no effect.

(5) Learned counsel for the petitioner,
therefore, submitted that since now there was
no hurdle in the way of the petitioner to mine
he may be allowed to continue to work for
the remaining five months and 21 days.

(6) Learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the Judgement of Beg Raj Singh
v. State of U.P. & Ors. JT 2002 (10) SC
417. He also relied upon the judgement of the
Supreme Court reported in AIR 2020 SC
4870, Chowgule and Company Private
Limited Vs. Goa Foundation and others
and argued that if during the subsistence of
the license period a litigation had intervened
and the petitioner had not been able to mine
from the mine for which he had a valid
permit then the period of time of mining be
extended.

(7) Per contra, Sri Sandeep Singh,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
12 All. M/s Manali Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
699
relying upon the judgement reported in
(2021) 1 Supreme Court Cases 93,
Dharmendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others, argued that if during the
period of the subsistence of a license, if the
the work of the petitioner was hindered
because of an intervening litigation and the
period
expired,
then
the
lease/license/permit could be extended only
if there was a statutory provision for
extension or if there was any condition in
the lease deed to extend the period which
had been wasted because of the intervening
litigation. He relied upon paragraph 37 of
the above judgement, which reads as under:

37. We do find ourselves in
agreement with the submission of the
learned counsel for the State that the right
to extension of lease either flows from a
statutory provision or from the terms of the
lease between the parties concerned. If
there has been an obstructed period of
by reason of a judicial interdict, that
itself will not give window to extend the
lease by not following the statutory
provisions, especially when the terms of
the lease do not provide for any
consequences thereof.

(8) Having considered the rival
submission of the parties, we are of the
view that the petitioner's permit to mine
for the reasons given in the judgement of
(2021) 1 Supreme Court Cases 93,
Dharmendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others cannot be extended.
Even though, we find that the reason
given by the District Magistrate that the
interim order in the Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) No.28916 of 2016, Vijay
Kumar Dwivedi vs. State of U.P. and 3
Ors. prohibited the extension is an
erroneous one, we decline to extend the
period for the reasons mentioned herein
above. Judgement reported in (2021)1
SCC 93 is a judgment which came later
in point of time. That is, it came after the
judgment reported in JT 2002 (1) SC 147
was delivered. The law as laid down in
2021(1) SCC 93 would thus be the good
law for the courts to follow.

(9) We are definitely of the view
that the petitioner could not work because
of the intervening litigation which was
initiated by Dileep Singh in the National
Green Tribunal and because of which, the
petitioner's mining work was hindered.
He also suffered financially.

(10) Be it as it may, we are further
of the view that the petitioner's case is
squarely
covered
by
the
provision
contained in Rule 41(h) of the Uttar
Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession)
Rules, 2021 and he can always ask for a
refund.

(11)

We
therefore,
without
interfering with the order of the District
Magistrate
dated
20.5.2023
which
virtually prohibits the petitioner from
further mining, provide that the petitioner
be refunded his money for the period he
could not work.

(12) Accordingly, the petitioner
be refunded the amount of royalty for
the period he did not work within a
period
of
one
month.
Since
the
petitioner did not mine for any fault of
his, we also direct that interest at the
rate of 6% per annum be given to the
petitioner on the amount which shall
be paid to him.

(13) With these observations, the
writ petition stands partly allowed.
----------
700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2023) 12 ILRA 700
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Writ-C No. 26916 of 2023

Committee Of Managemant of Waqf
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Sri Amit
Saxena (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, Sri Punit
Kumar Gupta, Sri Shashi Nandan (Sr. Adv.)

Civil Law - Waqf Act, 1995- Section 67Whenever the supervision or management of a
wakf is vested in any committee appointed by
the wakf- it may continue to function until it is
superseded by the Board -or until the expiry of
its term- on having satisfaction that the action
of the committee is inconsistent to the scheme
for the management of the Wakf-the power of
Section 67 of the Act can be exercised for
supervision of a committee-it can safely be
accepted that the Board is having a power to
appoint a committee for management of the
affairs of the Wakf -and it may be treated as a
Mutawalli-power is vested with the Board to
appoint
a
committee
-in
case
of
mismanagement- action may be taken for
removal as per the procedure u/s 64 of the Act-
while passing the impugned order -the Board
has not proceeded in consonance - that a
Committee is not functioning properly and
satisfactorily- or that the wakf is being
mismanaged and supersede such committee-it
was appropriate to the Board to take recourse
under Section 67 of the Act-impugned orders
set aside.
W.P. allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Babubhai Muljibhai Patel Vs Nandlal Khodidas
Barot & ors. (1974) 2 SCC 706

2. Radha Krishan Industries Vs St. of H.P. (2021)
6 SCC 771

3. K.S. Rashid and Son Vs Income Tax
Investigation Commission, AIR 1954 SC 207

4. Sangram Singh Vs Election Tribunal, AIR 1955
SC 425

5. Union of India Vs T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC
882

6. St. of U.P. Vs Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86

7. K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs St. of
Madras, AIR 1966 SC 1089

8. Rajasthan St. Electricity Board, Jainpur Vs
Mohan Lal & ors., AIR 1967 SC 1857

9. St. of U.P. Vs Neeraj Awasthi & ors., (2006) 1
SCC 667

10. Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons Vs Board of
Trustees of the Port of Bombay, (1989) 3 SCC
293

11. St. of Himachal Pradesh Vs Raja Mahendra
Pal & ors., (1999) 4 SCC 43

12. Nasiruddin & ors.Vs Sita Ram Agarwal,
Appeal (Civil) No.5077 of 1998 decided on
28.01.2003

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J.
&
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amit Saxena, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pradeep
Kumar Sharma for petitioner; Sri Ambrish
Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel alongwith Sri Fuzail Ahmad