RAMAKANT DWIVEDIversusRAFIQ AHMAD & ORS.

                        [2016] l S.C.R. 571



                     RAMAKANT DWIVEDI                                  A
                                 v.
                     RAFIQ AHMAD & ORS.
                    (Civil Appeal No. 4 of2016)
                       JANUARY 04, 2016                                B

     [ANIL R. DAVE AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.]
      Mines and Minerals - Excavation of minor minerals - On the
basis of renewal of pre-existing lease, on 27.4.2013 - PIL filed -
High Court passed interim order against excavation of minor
minerals by the appellant holding the grant of lease being violative
                                                                       c
of judgments passed in two cases - On appeal, held: The two
iudgments of High Court debarred grant of lease under Chapter JI
of 1963 Rules after 31.5.2012 - The Government order dated
26.2.2013 on the basis of which renewal dated 27.4.2013 was
granted, was itself in conflict with the High Court orders - Thus      D
grant of lease being in violation of the two judgments are liable to
be struck down - Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules,
1963 - Chapter II.
      Dismissing the appeal, the Court
                                                                       E
      HELD: 1. The High Court has rightly held that the renewal
was in pursuance of the Government Order dated 26th February,
2013 which itself was in conflict with the order of the High Court
in *Nar Narain Mishra's case as reiterated in **Suk/um Sing/i's
case. Orders of the High Court in *Nar Narain Mishra and
**Sukha11 Singh clearly debarred the grant oflease under Chapter       F
II of Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963,
after 31st May, 2012. In the case of the appellant, environmental
clearance was granted on 21st September, 2012 and renewal was
granted on 27th April, 2013. [para. 41 [573-E-Fl
       2. In the present case, since the lease was granted in          G
violation of judgment of the High Court, subsequent withdrawal
of the Government order dated 31st May, 2012 could not benefit
the appellant as on the date of grant of lease in favour of the
appellant, the said Government order was operative. [para 5)
(575-B-C)
                                                                       H
                                571
572             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016] l S.C.R.


A            *Nar Narain Mishra vs. The State of U.P. 2013(2) ADJ
             166; **Sukhan Singh versus State of U.P. 2014 (11)
             AD.J 89 - referred to.
                               Case Law Reference
             2013(2) ADJ 166             referred to               Para2
B
             2014 (11) ADJ 89            referred to               Para2
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 04 of
      2016
             From the Judgment and Order dated 18.06.2015 of the High Court
c     of Judicature at Allahabad in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 35233
      of2015.
          Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Arvind Srivastava, Anupam Mishra, Simanta
      Kumar Vinod Kumar K., Gaurav Khanna for the Appellant.
           Gaurav Bhatia,AAG, Samir Ali Khan, Gaurav Srivastava, Aditya
D
      Narayan Singh, Aamir Naseem, Md. Shahid Anwar, Syed Rafa! Ali,
      Debasis Kukarjee for the Respondents.
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. I. Leave granted. This appeal
 E    has been preferred against order dated l S'h June, 2015 passed by the
      High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in PIL No.35233of2015 granting
      an interim order against excavation of minor minerals by the appellant in
      respect oflease executed in his favour on l 7'h October, 2013.
            2. In the impugned order, the High Court observed that lease
 F    granted to the appellant was in violation ofits judgments dated 29"' January,
      2013 in Nar Narain Mishra versus The State of U.P. 1 and dated 12"'
      S~ptember, 2014 Suklwn Singh versas State of U.P. 2• In Nar Narain
      Mishra, the operative part of the High Court order is as follows :
             "bi the result, all the writ petitions are disposed with the
G            following directions :
                1) The prayers made by the petitioners/applicants for
                considering their applications for renewal of their mining
                leases which were pending on 311512012, and the
      ------
      ! 2013(2) ADJ 166
H     2 2014(ll)ADJ 89
           RAMAKANT DWIVEDI v. RAFIQ AHMAD                                   573
               [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

 ·,       applications for grant of fresh leases which were pending          A
          on 311512012 are refused.
         2) The Government Order dated 261712012 and all
         consequent steps taken thereunder are quashed.
          3) Notices issued by the District Magistrate inviting
          applications by E-tendering consequent to the Government           B
          Order dated 311512012, cannot be allowed to be finalized
          and are quashed with liberty to the respondents tv issue
          fresh notice in accordance with law.
          4) Parties shall bear their own costs."
                                                                             c
       3. According to the appellant, on 27" April, 2013, the pre-existing
lease in his favour which expired on 18"' November, 20 I 0, was renewed
for further period of three years upto 26"' April, 2016. Approval was
granted on 14"' March, 2011 and environmental clearance was granted
on 21" September, 2012. It is submitted that order of the Government
dated 31" May, 2012 was not applicable and was later withdrawn on            D
22"' October, 2014 and thus, the lease was valid.
       4. This submission though also supported by the State, cannot be
accepted. The High Court has rightly held that the renewal was in
pursuance of the Government Order dated 26'' February, 2013 which
itself was in conflict with the order of the High Court in Nar Narain         E
Mishra (supra) as reiterated in Suklwn Singh (supra). In view of
order of the High Court dated 29'' January, 2013 in Nar Narain Mishra
(supra) all pending applications as on 3 I" May, 2012 stood rejected. In
the case of the appellant, environmental clearance was granted on 21"
September, 2012 and renewal was granted on 27'' April, 2013. Orders
                                                                              F
of the High Court in Nar Narain Mishra and Sukhan Singh (supra)
which are not under challenge clearly debarred the grant oflease under
Chapter II after 31" May, 2012. This aspect has been dealt with in
greater detail in Civil Appeal Nos.4845-4846 of 2015 titled Sulekhan
Singh & Co. versus State of U.P. with which the present appeal was
tagged, which is being separately decided today. Stand of the State, to       G
the contrary, can also not be appreciated. Reference may be made to
the finding recorded by the High Court in the impugned order:
       "A Division Bench in the case of Nar Narain Mishra v. State
       of U.P. and others reported in 2013 (2) ADJ 166, after
       interpreting the Government Order dated 31.5.2012 recorded            H
574      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2016] I S.C.R.


A     as principle of law, that once notification has been published
      by the State Government in exercise of powers under Rule 23
      of the Rules 1963, for vacant areas being available for grant
      of leases under Chapter IV of Rules. 1963, no grant/renewal
      on the pending applications can be made, after 31.5.2012.
      The State was not satisfied ll'ith the legal position so explained.
B
      It came out with a Government Order dated 26.2.2013, which
      provided that pending applications, for renewal/grant in
      respect of which orders of approval have already been made
      by the State Government or by the competent authority shall
      not be controlled by the judgment in the case of Nar Narain
c     Mishra (Supra) such cases may be processed further.
      This Government Order dated 26.2.2013 came up for
      consideration before another Division Bench of this Court in
      the case of Sukkhan Singh v. State of UP. and others reported
      in 2014 (11) ADJ 89. The Division Bench has held that the
D     Government Order dated 26.2.2013 cannot deviate from the
      legal position, as has been explained in the case af Nar
      Narain Mishra (Supra).
      It, therefore, follows that no application which was pending
      on 31.5.2012 can be proceeded with for grant/renewal of
 E    lease under Chapter II/VI of the Minor Minerals Concession
      Rules, 1963 after 31.5.2012. The grant, if any, after 31.5.2012
      can only be made under Chapter IV of the Rules of 1963 Le.
      by e-auction or tendering. The State and its Officers have
      shown little or no respect to the orders of this Court.

 F    xxx
      Prima facie, we find no substance in the contention raised.
      In our opinion, once a notification dated 31.5.2012 had been
      issued declaring that all the vacant areas are available for
      grant of lease only under Chapter JV, no lease subsequent
 G
      thereto under Chapter VI could be executed. The area remains
      vacant till the execution of the lease deed. The Execution of
      the lease in the facts of the case has taken place after
      31.5.2012. Mere grant/approval in our opinion will not alter
      the legal position.
      The concern of the Court is both, in respect of best use of
H
            RAMAKANT DWIVEDI v. RAFIQ AHMAD                                  575
                [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

        natural resources by the State as well as for avoiding the           A
       degradation of environment, especially near the river beds. "
      5. Last submission on behalf of the appellant is that on 22"'
October, 2014 the State ofU.P. has declared that the mining leases will
be given under Chapter II and Order dated 31" May, 2012 was
withdrawn. In the present case, lease was granted in violation ofjudgment    B
of the High Court as already noted. Subsequent withdrawal of the
Government order dated 31" May, 2012 could not benefit the appellant
as on the date of grant of lease in favour of the appellant, the said
Government order was operative.
       6. In these circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere     c
with the impugned interim order and leave the issue on merits to be
finally decided by the High Court.
       7.   The appeal is dismissed.
Kalpana K. Tripathy                                      Appeal dismissed.
                                                                             D