# Rahul Panwar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 221
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-20
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1860 of 2020
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rahul-panwar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53654
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
The petitioner was the highest bidder for a
mining lease in Saharanpur-He deposited 25%
of the security and 25% of the first installment
of the royalty-He obtained an Environmental
Clearance Certificate which was challenged by
one Sunil Kumar before the NGT-The competent
authority revoked the original EC due to defects
and non-compliance with due procedure-The
respondent no. 3 cancelled the Letter of Intent
and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,38,46,500/- by
order dated 08.02.2019.

Headnotes
Civil
law-Constitution
of
India,1950Article
226-U.P.
Minor
Minerals
(Concession)
Rules,1963-Rule
29-The
court emphasized that the security can be
forfeited only if the failure to execute the
lease deed is "due to fault on the part of
the bidder" a condition the respondent
failed to establish-The defect in the EC
Certificate was the fault of the issuing
Authority (SEIAA), not the petitioner-The
petitioner could not execute the lease
deed without "valid, clean environmental
certificate-Petition allowed.

Held
The court concluded that the forfeiture of the
security and installment money was illegal and
arbitrary and could not be sustained in law-The
court found that the lease deed could not be
executed because the mandatory Environmental
222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
clearance certificate granted to the petitioner
was defective and under a cloud, as its validity
was challenged before NGT-The court directed
the respondent no.3 to refund the forfeited
amount-Furthermore, the court ordered that the
petitioner be compensated with 6% simple
interest on the refunded amount from the date
it
was
forfeited
until
the
date
of
its
payment.(Para 25 to 41) (E-6)

List of Acts
U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963

List of Keywords
U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules,1963,
Rule 29, Forfeiture of Security, First Instalment,
Amount
Forfeited,
Mining
Lease/E-tender,
Saharanpur,
Environmental
Clearance
Certificate, National Green Tribunal, Execution
of Lease Deed, SEIAA, Fault of Bidder, Refund.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION: WRIT-C No. - 1860 of
2020
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Rahul Panwar Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Ors.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for Petitioner:
 Ashish Malhotra
Adv. for Respondent:

 C.S.C.

## Text

8 All. Rahul Panwar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
221
discussed in the earlier part of the
judgment, and in view of the decisions of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Natwar
Singh (supra) and T. Takano (supra), and
the discussions made hererinabove, we are
of the opinion that a larger Bench of this
Court needs to consider the following
question:-

(i) Whether the Full Bench
decisions in Vivekanand Yadav (supra)
and Hafiz Attaullah Ansari (supra) have
been correctly decided on the point of
requirement of furnishing preliminary
inquiry report/ material, which is relied
upon in the show cause notice for
cessation of financial and administrative
powers of a gram pradhan or chairperson
of municipality, in view of decisions of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Natwar
Singh (supra) and T. Takano (supra) as
also the decision in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir
(supra) ?

(51)
However,
in view
of
the
discussion already made in the earlier
paragraphs, we see no reason to refer the
opinion expressed by the Full Bench in
Vivekanand Yadav's case (supra) to the
effect that the Gram Pradhan is not entitled
to raise any objections regarding the
complaint or report in terms of Rule 3 of
the Rules, 1997.

(52) Let the records be placed before
Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a
larger Bench of such strength as he deems
proper for considering the question referred
above.

(53) Interim order, if any, shall
continue till the next date of listing.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 221
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.08.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ C No. 1860 of 2020

Rahul Panwar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashish Malhotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
The petitioner was the highest bidder for a
mining lease in Saharanpur-He deposited 25%
of the security and 25% of the first installment
of the royalty-He obtained an Environmental
Clearance Certificate which was challenged by
one Sunil Kumar before the NGT-The competent
authority revoked the original EC due to defects
and non-compliance with due procedure-The
respondent no. 3 cancelled the Letter of Intent
and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,38,46,500/- by
order dated 08.02.2019.

Headnotes
Civil
law-Constitution
of
India,1950Article
226-U.P.
Minor
Minerals
(Concession)
Rules,1963-Rule
29-The
court emphasized that the security can be
forfeited only if the failure to execute the
lease deed is "due to fault on the part of
the bidder" a condition the respondent
failed to establish-The defect in the EC
Certificate was the fault of the issuing
Authority (SEIAA), not the petitioner-The
petitioner could not execute the lease
deed without "valid, clean environmental
certificate-Petition allowed.

Held
The court concluded that the forfeiture of the
security and installment money was illegal and
arbitrary and could not be sustained in law-The
court found that the lease deed could not be
executed because the mandatory Environmental
222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
clearance certificate granted to the petitioner
was defective and under a cloud, as its validity
was challenged before NGT-The court directed
the respondent no.3 to refund the forfeited
amount-Furthermore, the court ordered that the
petitioner be compensated with 6% simple
interest on the refunded amount from the date
it
was
forfeited
until
the
date
of
its
payment.(Para 25 to 41) (E-6)

List of Acts
U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963

List of Keywords
U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules,1963,
Rule 29, Forfeiture of Security, First Instalment,
Amount
Forfeited,
Mining
Lease/E-tender,
Saharanpur,
Environmental
Clearance
Certificate, National Green Tribunal, Execution
of Lease Deed, SEIAA, Fault of Bidder, Refund.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION: WRIT-C No. - 1860 of
2020
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Rahul Panwar Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Ors.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for Petitioner:
 Ashish Malhotra
Adv. for Respondent:

 C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.
&
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel-II for State-respondents.

2. The petitioner, by means of the
present writ petition, has assailed the order
dated 08.02.2019 passed by the respondent
no.3-District Magistrate, Saharanpur to the
extent of forfeiting 25% of the security and
25% of the first installment amounting to
Rs 10,38,46,500/-.

3. The facts, in brief, are that an
advertisement was issued by respondent
no.1 for E-tender-cum-E-auction for the
grant of mining lease in district Saharanpur
on 14.08.2017 on Gata No.3, Plot No.3,
area 8.05 hectares, i.e., 138462 cubic
square meters in Tehsil-Behat situated at
Yamuna River, Village Rehna, District
Saharanpur. The petitioner participated in
the E-tender process and was selected as
the highest bidder. The letter of intent was
issued to the petitioner on 15.03.2018. As
per the terms and conditions of the letter of
intent, the petitioner deposited 25% of the
security and 25% of the first installment of
the royalty with the treasury through
Challan No.Z-23 on 26.03.2018. The
petitioner was issued an environmental
clearance certificate on 22.11.2018. The
petitioner,
thereafter,
submitted
the
environmental clearance certificate dated
22.11.2018 to the department.

4. It appears that the environmental
clearance
certificate
granted
to
the
petitioner was challenged by one Sunil
Kumar in an Appeal No.258 of 2018 before
the National Green Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi. In the said appeal, the
National Green Tribunal on 13.12.2018
passed the following order:-

"ORDER

Challenge in this appeal is to the
order of Environmental clearance dated
22.11.2018 passed by the State Level
Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Uttar Pradesh.

The case of the appellant is that
no public consultation was held in terms of
judgment of this Tribunal dated 13.09.2018
in Satendra Pandey vs. Ministry of
8 All. Rahul Panwar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
223
Environment, Forest and Climate Change
& Anr, O.A No. 186 of 2016. No
replenishment study has been conducted.
The District Survey Report has not been
prepared in accordance with law. The
appellant also states that the mining site is
an Eco-Sensitive Zone of the Kalesar
National Park.

To consider the matter further,
we consider it is necessary to have the
response from the respondent no.2, Uttar
Pradesh
State
Environment
Impact
Assessment Authority and respondent no.4,
District Environment Impact Assessment
Authority, Saharanpur, within one month
from the receipt of copy of this order.

The appellant is also at liberty to
furnish a set of papers to respondent nos.2
& 4 and file a proof of service, to enable
them to furnish response to this Tribunal. It
is made clear that if the respondent nos.2 &
4 are satisfied that the clearance has been
given illegally, it will be open to them to
take further remedial steps in accordance
with law.

List again on 12.02.2019."

5. Under Rule 29 of U.P. Minor
Minerals
(Concession)
Rules,
1963,
amended on 14.08.2017 by Uttar Pradesh
Minor Minerals (Concession) (Forty Third
Amendment) Rules, 2017, a bidder was to
produce an approved mining plan and a
clean environment clearance certificate
prescribed as per rules. Thereafter, the
lease deed is to be executed.

6. The petitioner did not execute the
lease deed which led the respondent no.3 to
issue notice dated 14.12.2018 directing the
petitioner
to
deposit
Rs.2,53,39,740/-
towards stamp duty and District Mineral
Fund (DMF) etc. and get the lease deed
executed, and in case, the aforesaid deposit
is not made, an ex-parte proceedings may
be initiated for cancelling the letter of
intent, forfeiting security deposit and blacklisting the name of petitioner for five years.

7. The petitioner in response to the
aforesaid notice submitted his reply on
17.12.2018 which has been referred to by
the Mineral Officer, Saharanpur in his letter
dated 26.12.2018 wherein the Mineral
Officer noted that the petitioner has stated
in his objection that the information may be
provided to the petitioner as to whether any
proceeding in respect to the allotment of
mines and minerals lease is pending before
the Apex Court or before the National
Green Tribunal, New Delhi. The said letter
further recites that the petitioner, in his
objection, has also stated that he had come
to know that some proceeding in respect to
land allotted to the petitioner for mining is
pending, and whether the pendency of the
proceeding
would
affect
the
mining
operation of the petitioner.

8. The Mineral Officer in the said
letter has further stated that the stay order
operating in respect to mining in the area of
village Rehna has been lifted, and there is
no stay order by any of the Courts or
National Green Tribunal in respect to the
land allotted to the petitioner.

9. Thereafter, the petitioner again
submitted a reply on 05.01.2019 stating
therein that the State Government cannot
execute the lease deed without conducting
replenishment
study,
therefore,
an
information may be provided to the
petitioner as to whether any replenishment
study has been conducted by the State
Government by any authorised agency, and
if there is any such report, the same may be
provided to the petitioner so that he may
file the same before the Court. In the reply,
the petitioner has also stated that the
224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
environmental clearance certificate has
been challenged by one Sunil Kumar
before the National Green Tribunal, New
Delhi.

10. The record further reveals that the
petitioner has approached this Court by
filing Writ-C No.5098 of 2019, wherein he
has assailed the notice dated 11.01.2019.

11. It has also come on record that the
National Green Tribunal, New Delhi, in
Appeal No.258 of 2018, passed the
following order on 29.03.2019:-

"ORDER

Issue
for
consideration
is
compliance of the order of this Tribunal
dated 13.9.2018 requiring preparation of
District Survey Report before issuance of
the leases and recall of leases granted in
violation of the said order.

Vide order dated 13.12.2018, a
report was sought from the Uttar Pradesh
State Environment Impact Assessment
Authority
which
has
been
filed
on
12.03.2019 accepting that the leases in
question are hit by the order of this
Tribunal dated 13.09.2018 in Satendra
Pandey Vs. Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change & Anr., O.A.
No.186/2016.

Learned Counsel for the State of
Uttar Pradesh fairly states that appropriate
remedial action will be now taken within
one month to recall the Environmental
Clearance granted in violation of order of
this
Tribunal
dated
13.9.2018.
An
appropriate order will be passed in the
matter.

In
view
of
above,
if
the
Environmental Clearance is being acted
upon, the same may not be acted upon till
an appropriate order is passed by the
concerned authority.

The application is disposed of."

12. Thereafter, the respondent no.3, by
order dated 08.02.2019, cancelled the letter
of intent of the petitioner and further
imposed penalty of Rs 10,38,46,500/-
against the petitioner. The order dated
08.02.2019 is impugned in the present
petition.

13. A counter affidavit has been filed
by the State Government contending interalia that before the notice dated 14.12.2018,
a notice dated 03.12.2018 was issued to the
petitioner by which he was asked to get the
lease deed executed by depositing stamp
duty and after complying with the other
formalities. It is also stated that since the
petitioner did not take any action, therefore,
the final notice dated 11.01.2019 was
issued. It is stated that in pursuance of the
said notice, the petitioner has not deposited
the stamp duty nor has paid other dues;
therefore,
the
District
Magistrate,
Saharanpur, has passed the impugned order
dated 08.02.2019.

14. The respondent has further stated
that the petitioner vide letter dated
17.12.2018 has sought certain information
which has been supplied to the petitioner
by
the
respondent
by
letter
dated
26.12.2018, specifically stating that no
interim order/stay order has been granted
by the National Green Tribunal. The
respondent further stated that despite
specific information being supplied to the
petitioner, he neither deposited the stamp
duty nor executed the lease deed. This
shows that the petitioner was not willing to
execute the lease deed, and his intention
was to get the proposed mining area in
abeyance, and this action of the petitioner
has caused loss of revenue to the State
Government.
8 All. Rahul Panwar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
225

15. It is further stated that under Rule
60(1) of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession)
Rules, 1963, it is provided that if, within a
period of one month from the date of
issuance of the environmental clearance
certificate, the lease deed is not executed,
then
the
security
money
and
first
installment shall be forfeited.

16. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed
by the petitioner denying the averments
made in the counter affidavit.

17. The petitioner alongwith rejoinder
affidavit has filed reply of the State Level
Environment
Impact
Assessment
Authority, Uttar Pradesh in Execution
Application No.19 of 2020 in Appeal
No.258 of 2018 before the National Green
Tribunal, New Delhi in which it has been
categorically stated in paragraph no.6 that
in
compliance
of
the
order
dated
29.03.2019,
a
Joint
Committee
took
remedial action and revoked the original
EC. Dated 22.11.2018, issued in favour of
the petitioner. In the said paragraph, it is
stated that the order dated 29.03.2019
stands complied with.

18. Challenging the aforesaid order,
learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that in the instant case, the
environmental clearance certificate was
issued by the authority, namely, State
Environment Impact Assessment Authority
(SEIAA), which is a special agency
constituted for granting environmental
clearance certificates. It is submitted that
the
petitioner
has
obtained
an
environmental clearance certificate on
22.11.2018, which was assailed by one
Sunil Kumar before the National Green
Tribunal, New Delhi, in Appeal No.258 of
2018. It is contended that without having
environmental clearance certificate, the
petitioner could not carryout any mining
operation and could not execute the lease
deed in view of Rule 29 of amended Rules
of 1963, and in such view of the fact, there
was no fault on the part of the petitioner in
not getting the lease deed executed as per
the directions given by the respondent no.3.

19. It is contended that the defect in
granting
environmental
clearance
certificate was not because of the fault of
the petitioner, but it was the fault of the
authority namely State Environment Impact
Assessment Authority which had granted
environmental clearance certificate to the
petitioner without following due procedure
of law which led the National Green
Tribunal to pass an order the order dated
13.12.2018, extracted above, directing the
authority concerned to verify if the
environmental clearance certificate had
been granted to the petitioner illegally, it is
open to the authority to take further
remedial measures in accordance with law.

20. It is further submitted that since no
remedial steps were taken, therefore, the
National Green Tribunal passed an interim
order restraining the parties from acting
upon environmental clearance till an
appropriate
order
is
passed
by
the
concerned authority.

21. It is further submitted that it is
evident from paragraph no.6 of the reply
filed by the State Level Environment
Impact Assessment Authority that the
environmental clearance certificate was
cancelled by the competent authority.
Accordingly, it is submitted that once the
validity/legality
of
the
environmental
clearance certificate was sub-judice before
the Court, the petitioner could not get any
lease deed executed in view of Rule 29 of
amended Rules of 1963 and thus, the
226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner could not be faulted for nonexecuting the lease deed, and since, there
was no fault on the part of the petitioner in
executing the lease deed, the respondent
no.3 has erred in law in forfeiting 25% of
the
security
and
25%
of
the
first
installment.

22. It is further contended that even
the impugned order has been passed
without considering the effect of Rule 29 of
the amended Rules of 1963, which
specifically states that the security can be
forfeited only if the bidder is at fault in not
getting
the
lease
deed
executed.
Accordingly, it is submitted that the order
passed by the respondent no.3 forfeiting
25% of the security and 25% of the first
installment is illegal inasmuch as no
finding has been returned by the respondent
no.3 that fault was on the part of the
petitioner in not executing the lease deed.

23. Per contra, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel-II would contend
that in the instant case, the letter of intent
was given to the petitioner, and the
petitioner was asked to comply with the
requirement vis-a-vis depositing the stamp
duty and other dues which the petitioner is
liable to pay for execution of the lease
deed. It is submitted that on the date the
letter of intent was issued, there was no
interim
order
operating
against
the
environmental clearance certificate, and in
such view of the fact, the petitioner was at
fault in not getting the lease deed executed
and forfeiture of security by the respondent
no.3 is in compliance of Rule 29 of
amended Rules of 1963, therefore, there is
no illegality in the impugned order. He
further submits that if the petitioner had
executed the lease deed, he could easily
carry out the mining operation till any order
had been passed by the National Green
Tribunal
staying
the
environmental
clearance certificate.

24. He further submits that if there
was any injunction order passed by the
National Green Tribunal or any competent
Court staying the effect of environmental
clearance certificate, the State Government
would not have charged any royalty for the
period for which mining operation could
not be conducted by the petitioner for not
having environmental clearance certificate,
and thereafter, the defect in environmental
clearance could be removed and the mining
operation could be re-started. Accordingly,
it is submitted that the conduct of the
petitioner reflects that he was not at all
interested in carrying out the mining
operation, which was detrimental to the
interest of the Revenue Department, as the
action of the respondent has caused loss of
revenue to the State Government.

25. We have considered the rival
submissions of the parties and perused the
record.

26. Before proceeding to deal with the
contention of the parties, it would be apt to
reproduce Rule 29 of the amended Rules of
1963:-

"29. Execution of lease deed (1).
The
successful
bidder/tenderer
after
receiving letter of intent of concerned etender/e-auction/e-tender cum e-auction
shall produce, approved Mining Plan and
Clean Environment Certificate prescribed
as per rule, and a lease deed concerning
the same will be executed in form MM-6 or
in similar format. The registration of the
said executed lease deed will be registered
within three months period. The period of
lease will be counted from the date of
execution of the concerned lease deed. If
8 All. Rahul Panwar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
227
due to fault on the part of lease holder,
registration of the said executed lease deed
is not registered within three months, then
the said lease deed will be treated as null
and void and the amount of security will be
seized by the District Magistrate.

(2). Omitted.

(3). A copy of the lease deed
together with the map of the area shall be
sent by the District Officer or the
Committee, as the case may be, to the
Director, Geology and Mining, Uttar
Pradesh, within fifteen days from the date
of execution thereof."

27. Rule 29(1) provides that the
successful bidder, after receiving the letter
of intent, shall produce the approved
mining plan and clean environmental
certificate as per the rules and execute a
lease deed in terms of MM-6 or in a similar
format. The said rule further provides for
registration of the lease deed within three
months. The period of lease will be counted
from the date of execution of the lease
deed. The said rule confers power upon the
authority to forfeit the security of the
bidder in the event the lease deed is not
registered within three months due to the
fault of the bidder. Therefore, in order to
forfeit
the
security,
the
respondent
authority has to establish that there was
fault on the part of the bidder in not getting
the lease deed registered despite complying
with all formalities required for the
execution of the lease deed.

28. In the instant case, the petitioner was
a successful bidder and was issued a letter of
intent on 15.03.2018. The petitioner obtained
environmental clearance certificate from the
department
namely,
State
Environment
Impact Assessment Authority on 22.11.2018
which was assailed by one Sunil Kumar
before the National Green Tribunal in Appeal
No.258 of 2018, and while taking cognizance
on the appeal of Sunil Kumar challenging the
environmental
clearance
certificate,
the
National Green Tribunal granted liberty by
order dated 13.12.2018 to the competent
authority to take remedial measures in
accordance with law, if environmental
clearance certificate has been granted to the
petitioner illegally.

29. At this stage, it is pertinent to note
that the petitioner has to apply for the grant of
an environmental clearance certificate, but
the issuance of an environmental clearance
certificate is within the domain of the
SEIAA, and the petitioner has no role
whatsoever
in
the
issuance
of
an
environmental clearance certificate. If any
defect
or
infirmity
is
found
in
the
environmental
clearance
certificate,
the
petitioner cannot be faulted for the defect or
infirmity in the environmental clearance
certificate, and the fault is solely of the
department that is competent to issue such a
certificate.

 30.
In
the
instant
case,
the
environmental
clearance
certificate
was
assailed by one Sunil Kumar, on which the
National
Green
Tribunal
has
taken
cognizance and passed an order dated
13.12.2018,
which
has
already
been
extracted. When the State Government did
not take any action, the National Green
Tribunal passed an order of injunction on
29.03.2019
restraining
the
concerned
authority not to act upon the environmental
clearance certificate if the environmental
clearance certificate has been acted upon.

31. From the aforesaid fact, it is clear
that the veracity or legality of the
environmental clearance certificate was
under a cloud as it was challenged before
the National Green Tribunal.
228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

32. It is also established on record that
an environmental clearance certificate was
not issued in accordance with the procedure
provided, and there were several defects in
the environmental clearance certificate,
which led the competent authority to recall
the environmental clearance certificate
granted to the petitioner, which is evident
from paragraph 6 of the reply filed by the
competent
authority
in
Execution
Application No.19 of 2020.

33. The lease deed could not be
executed
for
the
defect
in
the
environmental clearance certificate, which
was assailed before the National Green
Tribunal. So the aforesaid fact clearly
discloses that the petitioner was not at fault
in not getting the lease deed executed.

34. No man of prudence would make a
huge amount in any venture from which he
is not going to reap any benefit, and it is
certain that the investment will doom.

35. In the instant case, even Rule 29 of
amended Rules of 1963 says that the
successful bidder after obtaining letter of
intent of concerned tender has to produce
clean
environmental
certificate
which
means environmental clearance certificate
has been issued by the competent authority
after following due procedure and is not
under scrutiny before any Court of law on
the ground that it has not issued as per the
procedure prescribed for issuing the said
certificate.

36. In view of Rule 29 of the amended
Rules of 1963, no lease deed could be
executed in the absence of a valid
environmental clearance certificate. As has
been held above, the clean environmental
certificate is to be issued by the competent
authority, and in the issuance of which, the
petitioner has no role, and if there was any
defect in the environmental clearance
certificate, the fault is of the concerned
department authorised to issue the clean
environmental certificate, for which the
petitioner cannot be penalised.

37. In view of the aforesaid fact, we
are of the view that the petitioner was not at
fault in not getting the lease deed executed
in compliance with the directions issued by
the respondent no.3, as he was prohibited
under Rule 29 of the amended Rules of
1963 to execute any lease deed till he
possesses a valid, clean environmental
certificate.

38. The respondent no.3 while passing
the impugned order has failed to consider
the aforesaid aspect of the matter and also
failed to consider Rule 29 of amended
Rules of 1963 in correct perspective that
the 25% security amount and 25% of first
installment can be forfeited if there is fault
of the successful bidder in not executing
the lease deed and getting it registered
within three months.

39. In view of the discussions made
above, we conclude that the forfeiture of
25% of the security as well as 25% of the
first installment of the petitioner by the
respondent no.3 is illegal and arbitrary and
cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly,
we set aside the impugned order dated
08.02.2019 to the extent it forfeits 25% of
the security and 25% of the first installment
of the petitioner. We further direct the
respondent no.3 to refund the amount of Rs
. 10,38,46,500/- deposited by the petitioner
towards security and the first installment.

40. We further find that 25% of the
security and 25% of the first installment
have been illegally forfeited by the
8 All. Maaz Ahmad Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
229
respondent
no.3,
due
to
which
the
petitioner has suffered financial loss. Thus,
in view of the aforesaid fact, we
compensate him by awarding 6% simple
interest on the aforesaid amount from the
date it was forfeited till the date of its
payment.

41. Thus, for the reasons given above,
the writ petition is allowed with no order as
to costs.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 229
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ C No. 7585 of 2025

Maaz Ahmad ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Diwakar Singh Gautam, Rejeiu Kumar
Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I.,
C.S.C.,
Gyanendra
Kumar
Srivastava,
Shahsank
Bhasin,
Syed
Mohammad Haidev Rizv

Issue for Consideration
The petitioner , a person with a specified
locomotor disability assessed at 70% permanent
disability by the CMO, Bahraich, had been
issued a Unique Disability ID(UDID)-He sought
reservation
benefits
for
"persons
with
Benchmark disability (PwBD) in the U.P. NEET
UG 2025 counseling-The benefit was denied
because Medical Institute, BHU re-assessed his
disability at 31%, which is less than the 40%
threshold required for benchmark disability
status under section 2(r) of the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act,2016.
Headnotes
Civil law-Constitution of India, 1950Article
226-Rights
of
Persons
with
Disabilities Act,2016-S. 2(r), Rule 18,19The court emphasized that the designated
center's role under the National Medical
Council
is
to
assess
the
'functional
disability'-Whether
the
candidate
can
functionally undergo the studies and
rigors of the course-It is not authorized to
reassess or supersede the percentage of
disability reflected in the UDID CardPetition allowed.

Held
The court held that the UDID Card, which
reflected a disability of 70% and established the
petitioner as a person with benchmark disability
must prevail for the grant of reservation-A
certificate issued under the statute and rules
cannot be overridden by an assessment from an
authority not specified under the Act-Thus, the
petitioner is entitled to register for NEET
Examination/counseling with the benefit of
reservation for PwBD.(Para 10 to 29) (E-6)

Case law Cited
Vishal Gupta Vs UOI & Ors, CMWP No. 1093 of
2022, Omkar Ramchandra Gond Vs UOI (2024)
SCC OnLine SC 2860,Purswani Ashutosh Vs UOI
(2019) 14 SCC 422, Anmol Son of Subhash
Chander, Vs UOI & Ors (2023): RJ- JP: 39699DB-referred to.
List of Acts
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,2016

List of Keywords
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,2016,
NEET Examination, Benchmark disability, PwBD,
reservation, UDID Card, specified locomotor
disability, National Medical Council, functional
disability, DGME.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION: WRIT-C No. - 7585 of
2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 0708.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Maaz
Ahmad
Vs.
U.O.I.
Thru.
Secy.
Ministry of Health and family welfare
Nirman Bhawan New Delhi & 8 Ors.