Harish Nagpal vs State of U.P. and Others

Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of opposite parties.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.4.2006 passed by O.P. No. 1/Secretary, Department of Geology and Mines, Lucknow and the order dated 4.01.2006 passed by District Magistrate, Bijnore/O.P. No. 2.

In brief the fact of the present case are tot he effect that the controversy in the present case relates to Mining lease in respect to the river bid of Tehsil Nagina District Bijnore.

As per the submission made by the petitioner''s counsel, the same was granted to the petitioner for three years w.e.f. 3.02.2006. However, during the intervening period i.e. 11.04.2003 to 15.07.2003 and 25.05.2005 to 10.10.2005, the petitioner was not allowed to continue the mining without any fault on his part. So, for the said period, he is liable to get the refund his royalty which is deposited with the opposite parties in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Subhash Chandra Chaudhari and others Vs. Ram Milan and others,

Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned Counsel submits that the petitioner does not press the relief No. 1 and 2 as prayed by him in the instant writ petition, but he confined his relief only to the extent that his case for refund of the royalty for the period as stated above may be considered by the appropriate authority in accordance with law.

Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the fact that the mining lease has been granted to the petitioner but he submits that due to illegal mining the demarcation was done and for the said purpose, the petitioner was not allowed mining during the intervening period when the work of demarcation is carried out and thereafter he was allowed to do so. However, as agreed between the parties that the present writ petition may be disposed of only in respect to the relief as claimed by the petitioner for refund back of the royalty for the period which is stated hereinabove.

Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned Counsel for the opposite parties does not dispute the request made on behalf of the petitioner by Dr. L.P. Mishra as stated above.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner does not want to press the relief Nos. 1 and 2 as claimed by him in the present writ petitoin and only wants that his case may be considered for refund of the royalty for the period during which he has not done the excavation.

For the foregoing period, the petitioner is directed to make fresh representation before District Magistrate, Bijnore/O.P. No. 2 annexing all relevant documents and materials in support of his case within a period of three weeks from today and taking the plea that he was restrained from mining during the period of lease for the reason which were beyond his control and after receiving the same, O.P. No. 2/District Magistrate/District Officer, Bijnor shall consider and dispose of the same with speaking orders within a period of eight weeks thereafter after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

With the above observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of.