# Santosh Kumar Goel v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 2 ILRA 909
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-07-11
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34488 of 2006
- **Bench:** A.K. Yog, V.C. Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santosh-kumar-goel-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40680
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules,
1963-Rule 6-A-Renewal of Mining leaseapplication for renewal by 7 days-beyond
time-instead of rejecting the same-D.M.
once referred the matter before State
Government-Rejection on the ground of
delay-held-not
proper-D.M.
ought
to
have either rejected or give opportunity
to remove the defect-order quashednecessary
direction
issued
to
give
910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
opportunity to explain the delay-process
the application for renewal accordingly.

Held: Para 12

The said Rule 7 of Rules, 1963 uses the
expression 'application' in the case of
'application for renewal' of mining lease.
Rule 8 of Rules, 1963, which requires
State
Government
to
process
the
application for renewal of mining lease
subject to satisfaction of requirement of
the other Rules and also after making
such other inquiry as it may consider
necessary.
If
application
to
'renew
mining lease' is not filed before six
month (as contemplated under Rule 6-A
of Rules, 1963) the application was
certainly not in order and in absence of
an application for condonation of delay it
should
be
treated
as
defective
or
incomplete. To this extent, the District
Magistrate
had
no
jurisdiction
to
entertain
the
applications
of
the
petitioner and refer it to the State
Government. The fact that application
without
condonation
of
delay,
was
entertained and referred to the State
Government, if the provisions of Rules 6
(2)
are
kept
in
mind
the District
Magistrate was supported to have given
notice requiring applicant (petitioner) to
complete the application in this respect
also. If application for condonation of
delay
was
essential
the
District
Magistrate should have rejected the
application himself on the ground of
being
incomplete
(instead
of
recommending to the Government for
condoning the delay).

## Text

2 All] Santosh Kumar Goel V. State of U.P. and others
909
decision.
Right
to
reason
is
an
indispensable part of a sound judicial
system. Another rationale is that the
affected party can know why the decision
has gone against him. One of the salutary
requirement of natural justice is spelling
out reasons for the order made, in other
words, a speaking out. The inscrutable
face
of
the
sphinx
is
ordinarily
incongruous with a judicial or quasi
judicial performance."

8. Reverting to the decision
impugned
herein,
from
a
careful
consideration of the judgment rendered by
Deputy Director Consolidation, it is
amply clear that no reasons have been
recorded by the authority while accepting
the case of the revisionist. It is also clear
that the authority concerned has not
reckoned into consideration the case of
the petitioner while allowing the revision
and setting aside the order of Settlement
Officer
Consolidation.
In
the
circumstances, I have no hesitation to
hold that the judgment impugned herein is
not
supported
by
any
reason
and
therefore, the same is bad in law on
account of non-consideration of the
grievances of both the parties and by this
reckoning, the same is liable to be
quashed.

9. By various decisions, while
sitting in this jurisdiction, the Court has
been stressing on the need of giving
reasons by these authorities under the
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act but
even thereafter, cases have come to fore
which gives appearance that the decisions
of this Court have not been enforced in
obedience.
The
Court
should
be
concerned with actual implementation of
its order and cannot remain a passive
pronounce of the judgment.

10. It is hoped that the authority
concerned will be visited with condign
chastisement
for
not
observing
in
compliance the earlier pronouncements of
the Court in this regard.

11. As a result of foregoing
discussion, the writ petition succeeds and
is allowed. The order dated 31.3.2001
passed by Deputy Director, Consolidation
is quashed. In consequence, the Deputy
Director Consolidation, Gorakhpur is
directed
to
pass
appropriate
orders
attended with reasons in accordance with
law after affording opportunity of hearing
to the parties.
 Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED; ALLAHABAD 11.07.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.K. YOG, J.
THE HON'BLE V.C. MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34488 of 2006

Santosh Kumar Goel

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ajay Kumar Goel

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vishnu Pratap
S.C.

U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules,
1963-Rule 6-A-Renewal of Mining leaseapplication for renewal by 7 days-beyond
time-instead of rejecting the same-D.M.
once referred the matter before State
Government-Rejection on the ground of
delay-held-not
proper-D.M.
ought
to
have either rejected or give opportunity
to remove the defect-order quashednecessary
direction
issued
to
give
910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
opportunity to explain the delay-process
the application for renewal accordingly.

Held: Para 12

The said Rule 7 of Rules, 1963 uses the
expression 'application' in the case of
'application for renewal' of mining lease.
Rule 8 of Rules, 1963, which requires
State
Government
to
process
the
application for renewal of mining lease
subject to satisfaction of requirement of
the other Rules and also after making
such other inquiry as it may consider
necessary.
If
application
to
'renew
mining lease' is not filed before six
month (as contemplated under Rule 6-A
of Rules, 1963) the application was
certainly not in order and in absence of
an application for condonation of delay it
should
be
treated
as
defective
or
incomplete. To this extent, the District
Magistrate
had
no
jurisdiction
to
entertain
the
applications
of
the
petitioner and refer it to the State
Government. The fact that application
without
condonation
of
delay,
was
entertained and referred to the State
Government, if the provisions of Rules 6
(2)
are
kept
in
mind
the District
Magistrate was supported to have given
notice requiring applicant (petitioner) to
complete the application in this respect
also. If application for condonation of
delay
was
essential
the
District
Magistrate should have rejected the
application himself on the ground of
being
incomplete
(instead
of
recommending to the Government for
condoning the delay).

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.K. Yog, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Shri Vishnu Pratap learned
standing counsel on behalf of the
respondents and perused the record.

2. The petitioner, who held earlier
mining lease, which was to expire,
submitted an application for renewal, as
contemplated under Rule 6-A, U.P. Minor
Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. The
said application was found in order under
Rules 6-A read with Rule 6 of the said
Rules,
1963.
There
was
no
application/prayer to condone delay in
filing this application.

3. The District Magistrate/District
Mines Officer, however, found that there
was delay of 7 days in submitting the
application, i.e. 7 days beyond six months
as referred to in Rule 6-A of the Rule
1963. The District Magistrate referred the
matter to the State Government with the
recommendation to condone the delay as
provided under Rule 6-A (2) of Rules,
1963. The State Government rejected
application
of
the
petitioner
vide
impugned
order
dated
May
19,
2006/annexure- 9to the writ petition on
the ground that the petitioner has failed to
show cause for the delay in submitting
application for renewal of mining lease in
his favour.

4. The petitioner has prayed for
issuing a writ order or direction in the
nature
of
certiorari
quashing
the
impugned order dated 19.5.2006 passed
by
respondent
no.1/State
of
U.P.
(annexure-9 to the writ petition) and also
a writ of mandamus commanding the
respondents-authorities to condone the
delay of 7 days in filing the lease and
another writ of mandamus to direct the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to sign the lease
deed and other usual lease deed.

5. Vide our order-dated 6.7.2006,
this Court required the respondents to
produce
original
record
containing
applications
of
all
the
applicants
(including the petitioner) in the matter for
2 All] Santosh Kumar Goel V. State of U.P. and others
911
renewal of lease. Consequently, original
record has been placed before us.

6. We have perused the report/order
dated 3.12.2005 passed by the District
Magistrate wherein he found that the
application was in accordance with rules
but 7 days delay be condoned by the State
Government.

7. It is conceded by the learned
standing counsel that there is no provision
in Rules, 1963 requiring an applicant to
submit an application for condonation of
delay or give explanation or disclose the
cause of delay and give justification to
satisfy that ground given is sufficient to
warrant condonation of delay.

8. It is argued by the Standing
Counsel that unless application is filed
giving
cause
for
delay,
the
State
Government
is
not
in
position
to
assess/adjudicate the sufficiency of cause
of the delay.

9. The petitioner submitted that
applications for condonation of delay in
the case of others (even though the delay
in
submitting
application
by
those
applicants was for larger period) were
allowed by the State Government.

10. Learned counsel for the
petitioner
submitted
that
before
application for renewal is rejected an
opportunity ought to have been given to
submit
reasons/cause
for
seeking
condonation of delay. In support of his
argument, reference is made to Rules 6, 6A, 7 and 8 of the Rules, 1963 which are
reproduced for convince:

6.
Application fee and deposit for
grant of mining lease.-
(1) Every application for grant of a
mining lease shall be accompanied by-

(a)
a fee one thousand rupees,
(b)
a deposit of two thousand rupees for
meeting
the
preliminary
experiences,
others
than
those
specified in Rule 17, and
(c)
four copies of the cadastral survey
map on which the area applied for
is clearly marked and in case such
area is not covered by cadastral
survey, four copies of topographical
surrey on a scale at least 4" =1 mile,
on which the area applied for is
accurately marked.
(d)
a certificate, issued by the District
Officer or by such officer as may be
authorised by the District Officer in
this behalf, showing that no mining
dues are outstanding against the
applicant:

 Provided that further that such
certificate shall not be required
where the applicant has furnished
an affidavit to the satisfaction of the
State Government, stating that he
does not hold or had not held any
mining lease or any other mineral
concession in the territory of the
State.

(e)
a certificate of caste and residence
of
the
applicant,
where
the
application is for mining lease of
sand or morrum or bajri or boulder
or any of these in mixed state.
(f)
a character certificate given by the
District Officer of the District,
where the applicant permanently
resides.

(2) If the application is not complete in
any respect or is not accompanied by the
912 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
fee deposit or the documents mentioned in
sub rule (1) the District Officer or the
officer
authorised
by
the
State
Government in this behalf, shall, by
fifteen days notice require the applicant to
complete the application in all respect or,
to deposit the fee or furnish the
documents within such time as may be
specified in the notice and if the applicant
to do so within the specified time such
application shall not be considered.

6-A. Application fee etc. for renewal of
mining lease-

(1) An application for renewal of mining
lease may be made at least six
months before the date of expiry of
the mining lease along with four
copies of the map of lease hold area
showing clearly the area applied for
renewal and the provisions of clause
(a) and (b) of sub rule (1) of Rule 6
shall mutatis mutandis.

(2) The State Government may condone
the delay caused in making the
application for renewal of mining
lease after the period specified in sub
rule (1).

7.
Enquiry and Report- The District
Officer shall, unless he is authorize to
grant or renew the mining lease, cause an
enquiry to be made into all relevant
masters and, within two months from the
date of receipt of application or mining
lease,
forward
two
copies
of
the
application along with his report to the
State Government or to such other
authority as the State Government may
have authorised in this behalf.

8.
Disposal of application-
(1) The
State
Government
or
the
authority authorised by it in this behalf
may subject to the provisions of these
rules and after making such further
enquiry as it may consider necessary-

(a) in case of application for grant of a
mining lease refuse or grant the
mining lease for the whole or part of
the area applied for and for such
period as it may consider proper.

(b) in the case of application for renewal
of a mining lease, refuse or renew the
mining lease for the whole or part of
the are applied for and for such
period, not exceeding the period of
the original lease, as it may consider
proper.

Provided that where an application
for grant or renewal of a mining lease is
refused or the area is reduced, reasons
therefore
shall
be
recorded
and
communicated to the applicant.

11. Learned counsel for the
petitioner referred to Rule 6 (2) of Rules,
1963 and pointed out that District Officer
is required for giving 15 days notice in
case application is not complete in any
respect of Rules 6 (1) of Rules, 1963. It is
contended that application for renewal is
also an application and, therefore, if
'application for renewal' is not complete,
District Magistrate ought to have given
opportunity in this respect to remove the
defect. In support of his argument, learned
counsel for the petitioner referred to Rule
7, which requires District Officer to cause
an inquiry to be made into all relevant
matters and within two months from the
date of receipt of application of mining
lease forward two copies of application
2 All] Shri Kishore and another V. Roop Kishore
913
(along with his report to the State
Government).

12. The said Rule 7 of Rules, 1963
uses the expression 'application' in the
case of 'application for renewal' of
mining lease. Rule 8 of Rules, 1963,
which requires State Government to
process the application for renewal of
mining lease subject to satisfaction of
requirement of the other Rules and also
after making such other inquiry as it may
consider necessary. If application to
'renew mining lease' is not filed before
six month (as contemplated under Rule 6A of Rules, 1963) the application was
certainly not in order and in absence of an
application for condonation of delay it
should
be
treated
as
defective
or
incomplete. To this extent, the District
Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain
the applications of the petitioner and refer
it to the State Government. The fact that
application without condonation of delay,
was entertained and referred to the State
Government, if the provisions of Rules 6
(2) are kept in mind the District
Magistrate was supported to have given
notice requiring applicant (petitioner) to
complete the application in this respect
also. If application for condonation of
delay was essential the District Magistrate
should have rejected the application
himself
on
the
ground
of
being
incomplete (instead of recommending to
the Government for condoning the delay).

13. In this view of the matter, we
find that the impugned order dated
19.5.2006
(annexure-9
to
the
writ
petition) cannot be sustained and is liable
to be set aside.

14. The impugned order dated
19.5.2006 is hereby set aside with a
direction to the respondent no. 1 to
consider the application afresh after
giving full opportunity to the petitioner to
submit explanation for condonation of
delay to avoid delay as matter is quite old.
We further direct the petitioner to file
certified copy of this Judgment along with
an application for condonation of delay
before respondent no. 1 within four weeks
from today and if the petitioner files an
application for condonation of delay, as
stipulated, respondent no. 1 shall decide
the same in accordance with law within
one month of receipt of such application.

15. While dealing with the instant
case, we are of the opinion that the rules
framed are inadequate and it is advisable
that specific provision be made requiring
the applicant, in the case of renewal of
mining lease, to file an application for
condonation of delay and adequate
admendment be incorporated in rules to
avoid ambiguity in future. For this
purpose, a copy of this Judgment shall be
sent to the Principal Secretary, Industrial
Development for consideration of the
State Government to take steps, in order
to avoid unnecessary litigation in Court
on this issue, if so advised.

16. Petition stands allowed. No
order as to costs. Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.11.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44671 of 2004

Shri Kishore and another
 ...Defendant/Petitioner
Versus
Roop Kishore ...Plaintiff/Respondent