# Ram Pal @ Rampa v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2004) 1 ILRA 246
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-01-27
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30048 of 2001
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Mrs. Poonam Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-pal-rampa-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40333
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules
1963-Rr. 9, 9-A and 23-Grant of mining
lease on preferential basis-Validity-Rule
9-A-declared ultra vires-S. 15 of MMRD
Act by Full Bench-ban imposed by State
Government in grant of lease-By virtue
of Government Order dated 13.6.2001
lease ban in renewal of lease granted
prior to 27.3.2001 lifted-Clause (3) of
G.O. permitted renewal of leases of even
those lease holders who were granted
leases on preferential basis-Renewal of
lease granted to respondent no. 4-Writ
challenging G.O. dated 13.2.2001 and
Order
dated
25.4.2001
passed
by
concerned authority Respondent No. 4 in
his Counter Affidavit claimed his renewal
only on basis of order of status quo of
Apex Court, whereas Division Bench in
Katwaru's case has clarified position-As
such respondent no. 4 has no right to
continue lease on basis of Order dated
25.4.2001-Held, State Government still
has power to grant mining lease under
Rule 9 and 23-Therefore, Order dated
25.4.2001 and renewal of lease on basis
of G.O. dated 13.6.2001 in favour of such
persons who were granted mining lease
on preferential basis under R. 9-A
quashed.

Held: Paras 10 & 11

A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by
Ganga Dayal, respondent no. 4 will show
that he claimed his renewal only on the
basis of the order of status- quo of the
Apex Court, whereas the Division Bench
in the case of Katwaru (Supra) has
clearly clarified the position and as such
the contesting respondent has no right
to continue the lease on the basis of
order dated 25.4.2001. The order has not
been defended by the Standing Counsel
in his counter affidavit. The only stand
taken in paragraph 2 of the counter
affidavit is relating to the Government
orders
dated
30.3.2001/4.4.2001
whereby all the District Magistrates were
stopped from granting mining lease.

The provisions of Rule 9 and Rule 23 of
the Rules of 1963 are still available to
the State Government to grant mining
lease as and when it is necessary. In the
circumstances,
the
orders
dated
25.4.2001 and the renewal of the lease
on the basis of Government Circular
dated 13.6.2001 in favour of such
persons who were granted mining lease
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Ram Pal @ Rampa V. State of U.P. and others 247
on preferential basis under Rule 9-A are
quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
There shall be no order as to cost.
Case law discussed:
2002 (46) ALR 475

## Text

246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
additions were being made for this reason
without verifying the facts correctly. It is
the duty of the department to make a
correct assessment and not to make an
excessive assessment merely on the
ground of shortage of time.

32. No doubt the department has to
assess and collect the correct tax, but for
this purpose it should devise and set up a
rational scheme in accordance with law. It
should certainly not make assessments
hurriedly merely by saying that there is
shortage of time, (as often happens), thus
putting the citizens to great harassment.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.01.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. POONAM SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30048 of 2001

Ram Pal @ Rampa

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ramesh Upadhyaya
Sri M.P. Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V. Pratap
Sri A. Mishra
Sri C.B. Singh
S.C.

U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules
1963-Rr. 9, 9-A and 23-Grant of mining
lease on preferential basis-Validity-Rule
9-A-declared ultra vires-S. 15 of MMRD
Act by Full Bench-ban imposed by State
Government in grant of lease-By virtue
of Government Order dated 13.6.2001
lease ban in renewal of lease granted
prior to 27.3.2001 lifted-Clause (3) of
G.O. permitted renewal of leases of even
those lease holders who were granted
leases on preferential basis-Renewal of
lease granted to respondent no. 4-Writ
challenging G.O. dated 13.2.2001 and
Order
dated
25.4.2001
passed
by
concerned authority Respondent No. 4 in
his Counter Affidavit claimed his renewal
only on basis of order of status quo of
Apex Court, whereas Division Bench in
Katwaru's case has clarified position-As
such respondent no. 4 has no right to
continue lease on basis of Order dated
25.4.2001-Held, State Government still
has power to grant mining lease under
Rule 9 and 23-Therefore, Order dated
25.4.2001 and renewal of lease on basis
of G.O. dated 13.6.2001 in favour of such
persons who were granted mining lease
on preferential basis under R. 9-A
quashed.

Held: Paras 10 & 11

A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by
Ganga Dayal, respondent no. 4 will show
that he claimed his renewal only on the
basis of the order of status- quo of the
Apex Court, whereas the Division Bench
in the case of Katwaru (Supra) has
clearly clarified the position and as such
the contesting respondent has no right
to continue the lease on the basis of
order dated 25.4.2001. The order has not
been defended by the Standing Counsel
in his counter affidavit. The only stand
taken in paragraph 2 of the counter
affidavit is relating to the Government
orders
dated
30.3.2001/4.4.2001
whereby all the District Magistrates were
stopped from granting mining lease.

The provisions of Rule 9 and Rule 23 of
the Rules of 1963 are still available to
the State Government to grant mining
lease as and when it is necessary. In the
circumstances,
the
orders
dated
25.4.2001 and the renewal of the lease
on the basis of Government Circular
dated 13.6.2001 in favour of such
persons who were granted mining lease
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Ram Pal @ Rampa V. State of U.P. and others 247
on preferential basis under Rule 9-A are
quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
There shall be no order as to cost.
Case law discussed:
2002 (46) ALR 475

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The writ petition has been filed
challenging the Circular dated 13.6.2001
issued by the State of U.P. through
Secretary
Industrial
Development
Government of U.P. and order dated
25.4.2001 (Annexure 4 to the writ
petition) whereby the A.D.M., Fatehpur
had renewed the licence in favour of the
contesting respondent no. 4 granting lease
on preferential basis.

3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits
have been exchanged between the parties
and are on record.

4. The petitioner has challenged the
orders on the ground that Rule 9-A has
been held to be ultra-vires by a Full
Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.
256 (MB) 1997, Ram Chandra Vs. State
of U.P. and others connected writ
petitions, and hence no mining lease can
be granted by the respondents under the
U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules,
1963.

5. Rule 9-A of the U.P. Minor
Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 was
inserted by the 20th Amendment Rules,
1994, whereby preferential right was
granted
to
certain
socially
and
educationally
backward
castes
for
excavating sand etc. The Full Bench
quashed the aforesaid rule rejecting the
contention of the State of U.P. that the
Rules were effected to serve the cause of
social order for the promotion of welfare
of the people as contained in Article 39 of
the Constitution of India. It was observed
by the Full Bench that the M.M.R.D. Act
pertaining to conservation of minerals and
production/explitation of the minerals can
not be ignored. The observation of the
Full Bench was that the Government can
not under Clause (b) of Article 39 issue an
order, as has been done by the State
Government in conflict with the Full
Bench decision is Annexure-1 to the
petition. The Full Bench held that Rules
9A and 53A are irrational, arbitrary,
unreasonable and discriminatory.

6.

The
contesting
private
respondents were granted mining lease on
preferential basis under Rule 9-A of the
U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules
1963. However, after the decision by the
Full Bench, a ban was imposed by the
State Government in granting lease under
the Rules. By virtue of Government Order
dated 13.6.2001, the State Government
realized certain difficulties and lifted the
ban in the renewal of the leases granted
prior to 27.3.2001. The Government
Order in its Clause 3 has clearly granted
permission for renewal of the licence even
to such lease holders who were granted
lease on preferential basis under Rule 9-A
of the Rules, and finally the authority
concerned renewed the lease in favour of
Ganga Dayal, respondent no. 4 vide order
dated 25.4.2001 which is also under
challenge. The present writ petition was
filed challenging the Government order
dated 13.2.2001 and consequential order
dated 25.4.2001 passed by the concerned
authority. An interim order was passed by
this Court staying the two orders which
are still operating in the present writ
petition.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004

7. It is relevant to point out that a
new development had taken place during
the pendency of the writ petition. An
application was moved allegedly on
behalf of the petitioner for withdrawing
the writ petition as not pressed and an
order was passed on 8.2.2002 dismissing
the petition as not pressed. Subsequently
on a recall application the Division Bench
of Hon'ble B.K. Roy and Hon. D.R.
Chaudhary, JJ. dismissed the Civil Misc.
Recall Application No. 3538 of 2002 on
5.4.2002.
Aggrieved,
petitioner
approached the Apex Court challenging
the orders dated 8.2.2002 and 5.4.2002.
The Apex Court set aside the two orders
and remanded the case for decision on
merit. Hence the present writ petition is
being decided finally.

8.

The
stand
of
the
State
Government is that the Government order
dated 13.6.2001 was issued on account of
the reason that despite the Full Bench
holding that no lease can be granted on a
preferential basis under Rule 9 -A as it
has been held to be ultra vires yet the Full
Bench had not stopped the respondent
renewal of the lease s granted earlier. In
Clause 3 of the Government order it has
specifically been stat ed that the lease
which has already been granted earlier,
can be renewed and there is no restriction
in renewal of such lease granted prior on
27.3.2001. As a result of the Government
order dated 13.6.2001, the order dated
25.4.2001 was passed in favour of Ganga
Dayal son of Burail, respondent no. 4.

9. A Division Bench of this Court in
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44196 of
2001 reported in 2002 (46) ALR 475,
Katwaru
Vs.
Special
Secretary
Industrial, has considered the question
and legality of the renewal of the such
lease which was granted earlier on
preferential basis under Rule 9-A of the
Rules. The Division Bench clearly held
that since Rule 9-A of the Rules. The
Division Bench clearly held that since
Rule 9-A has been struck down in favour
of one who had got a mining lease on
preferential basis under Rule 9-A of the
Rules such person can not claim renewal
of his lease under Rule 6-A. The order of
the supreme Court to maintain status-quo
in the S.L.P. granted against the decision
of the Full Bench will in no way benefit
such claimants who claim renewal on
preferential basis. The effect of the order
of status-quo will only be limited to the
extent that any one who had been granted
lease under Rule 9-A of the Rules or
granted renewal under Rule 9-A at the
time when the order of the status-quo was
passed, would continue to have the right
to excavate the minerals even after expiry
of the lease on renewal. The order
maintaining status-quo does not mean that
lessee could continue to excavate the
minerals till the expiry of the lease.
Paragraph 5 of the judgement of the
Katwaru ( supra) is as under :

"The petitioner claimed preferential
right for grant of a mining lease under
Rule 9-A of the Rules as he belongs to a
caste which is enumerated in explanation
appended to sub- rule 1 thereof. He was
granted a mining lease on a preferential
basis on 24.10.1998 for a period of 3
years. The period of his lease expired on
23.10.2001. Prior to the expiry of the
lease, expired on 23.102001. Prior to the
expiry of the lease, the Full Bench of this
Court by the judgment and order dated
27.3.2001 struck down Rule 9-A of the
Rules
as
being
violative
of
the
Constitution of India and the provisions of
Mines and Mineral (Regulation and
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] M/s Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. V. The Cess Officer, U.P. and others 249
Development) Act 1957. In view of this
decision, the petitioner cannot claim any
preferential right to get a mining lease.
Rule 6-A of the Rules no doubt provides
for renewal of a mining lease but the
effect of renewal of a mining lease which
had been granted on preferential basis
would be that a right acquired under Rule
9-A on preferential basis would be
perpetuated or get a fresh lease of life for
a further period of 3 years. The copy of
the order passed by the District Officer on
1.10.2001 shows that the renewal had
been granted on the same terms and
conditions on which the original lease
had been granted and in addition some
other conditions of minor nature has been
imposed. The effect of the renewal would
be that the mining are would continue to
be operated by a person on the basis of ka
preferential right as provided under Rule
9-A of the Rules has disappeared after the
decision of the Full Bench on 27.3.2001
when the said provision was declined to
be ultra vires. Therefore, any one who
had got a mining lease on preferential
basis under Rule 9-A of the Rules cannot
claim renewal of his lease under Rule 6-A
after the decision of the Full Bench."

10. A perusal of the counter affidavit
filed by Ganga Dayal, respondent no. 4
will show that he claimed his renewal
only on the basis of the order of status-
quo of the Apex Court, whereas the
Division Bench in the case of Katwaru
(Supra) has clearly clarified the position
and as such the contesting respondent has
no right to continue the lease on the basis
of order dated 25.4.2001. The order has
not been defended by the Standing
Counsel in his counter affidavit. The only
stand taken in paragraph 2 of the counter
affidavit is relating to the Government
orders dated 30.3.2001/4.4.2001 whereby
all the District Magistrates were stopped
from granting mining lease.

11. The provisions of Rule 9 and
Rule 23 of the Rules of 1963 are still
available to the State Government to grant
mining lease as and when it is necessary.
In the circumstances, the orders dated
25.4.2001 and the renewal of the lease on
the basis of Government Circular dated
13.6.2001 in favour of such persons who
were granted mining lease on preferential
basis under Rule 9-A are quashed. The
writ petition is allowed. There shall be no
order as to cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 3.3.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI, J.
THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1898 of 1982

M/s Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd.

 ...Petitioner
Versus
The Cess Officer, U.P. and others

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.P. Gupta
Sri Vijai Ratan Agarwal
Sri Vevek Ratan
Sri N. Lal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Dr. H.N. Tripathi
Sri S.L. Srivastava, S.S.C.
S.C.

Water
(Prevention
and
Control
of
Pollution) Cess Act, 1977-Schedule IApplicability- Liability to pay water cessPetitioner producing torches, batteries
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in