IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1738 of 2007 (M/S) Sri Vikram Singh Aswal, S/O Sri Tej Singh, R/O Badrinath Marg, Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal. …… Petitioner. Versus The Union of India, Ministry of Forest through Deputy Forest Conservator (Central), New Delhi and two others. … Respondents. Sri Alok Singh, Senior Advocate, with Sri G.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Arvind Vashist, Asstt. Solicitor General of India, learned cousel for the respondent no. 1-UOI. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State-respondents 2 and 3. Date April 24, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Sri Alok Singh, Senior Advocate with Sri G.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arvind Vashist, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondent no.1 and Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of 1-09-2006 (Annexure NO. 14 to the writ petition) as also the order dated 9-7-2006 (Annexure No. S-1 to the Supplementary Affidavit filed on 03-05-2007). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to respondents not to implement the orders dated 1-9- 2006 and 9-7-2006. (iii) Issue any other/further writ order or direction(s), which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Briefly stated, facts giving rise to the present writ petition, are that permission was granted vide Annexure No. 10 on the application of the petitioner to grant mining lease in respect of plot no. 544 and 554, total area 2.57 Hectares of village Srikot 2 Ganganali (Pauri Garhwal) and in pursuance to the permission granted by the Government, the Collector Pauri Garhwal was directed to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner. The lease deed was executed on 31-07-2006 by the Collector on behalf of the State after getting deposited a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the petitioner as mining fee and a sum of Rs. 37,500/- as security. The receipts of the payment have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 11 and 12 to the writ petition. The mining work was started by the petitioner on 31-7-2006. The controversy arose when on the request having been made by the Nodal Officer, Uttaranchal by his letter dated 9- 7-2006 for cancellation of the sanction order, the Deputy Conservator of Forest (Central) by his letter/order dated 1-9-2006 withdrew the permission which was granted by the Central Government by letter dated 18-01-2002. It is pertinent to mention here that the order was passed by the Central Government on the recommendation made by the Nodal Officer by his letter dated 9-7-2006, which has been annexed as Annexure SA-1 to the Supplementary Affidavit. The order dated 1-9-2006 and the recommendation which was made by the Nodal Officer both have been assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition. In reply, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.3 and in paragraph no. 4 it was stated that the Central Government agency had independent jurisdiction to take decision on merit of the case. In paragraph no. 19 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.1 it was stated that the impugned order dated 1-9-2006 was passed by the Central Government on the request of Nodal Officer, Forest, Government of Uttarakhand, wherein request was made to withdraw the permission which was granted in favour of the petitioner on 18-01-2002. 3 In counter affidavit filed onbehalf of respondent no.2 on 18-7-2007, in para no. 16, the following averment has been made:- “16. That in reply to the contents of para 19 of the writ ptition it is submitted that in writ petition no. 1178(M/B)-Vikram Singh Aswal Vs. District Magistrate, Dehradun & Another, the Hon’ble Court passed a direction on 23-12-2003 as follows:- “Heard, counter affidavit within three weeks, meanwhile representation be decided.” In compliance of the above order, the matter has been thoroughly examined by the State Govt. considering the facts and circumstances of the case vis-à-vis the existing Mining Policy and consequently, the State Govt. has taken a decision vide its order no. 11/7-1-2004-900(366)/2000 dated 1-3-2004 stating that the representation is not in consonance with the provisions of State Government’s Mining Policy. For kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court, a copy of the said order dated 1-3-2004 is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure No. C.A.4 to this counter affidavit.” I have perused the averments made in the writ petition as well as counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavit filed by the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 31-7-2006, which was duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar Srinagar (Pauri Garhwal). The letter dated 9-7- 2006 was written by the Nodal Officer to the Central Government for revocation of the permission prior to the execution of the registered lease deed and that too not by the State Government, therefore, the letter written by the Nodal Officer concerned has become redundant after execution of the lease deed. 4 Moreover, it is pertinent to mention here that the Secretary, Industrial Development of the State Government had written a letter to the District Magistrate Pauri Garhwal on 7-4- 2006 (Annexure No. 10) thereby permission was granted by the State Government for mining lease. This fact was not within the knowledge of the Central Government that the State Government had already acted upon the permission which was granted in favour of the petitioner by the Central Government on 18-01-2002, while revoking the said permission. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the Central Government has contended that the earlier permission was revoked on the recommendation made by Nodal Officer, Forest Department, Government of Uttaranchal. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State has contended that because the mining has to be carried out within the area of reserved forest, hence the permission of the Central Government is necessary. He has further contended that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.2, it has been stated in paragraph no. 4 that since the mining policy has been changed by the Government, hence the recommendation was made by the Nodal Officer for revoking the permission. The argument of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel cannot be accepted for the simple reason because the State Government never wrote a letter to the Nodal Officer for cancellation of the permission, which was granted earlier by the Central Government and no correspondence was made by the State Government with the Central Government for reconsideration of the matter and there is no material on record to this effect. The letter was written by the Nodal Officer of the Forest Department suo motu to the Central Government. 5 On the other hand, in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner it has been stated in paragraph no. 4 that none of the respondents has denied the execution of registered mining lease on 31-7-2006 by the State Government, therefore, any decision taken prior to the execution of lease deed dated 31-7-2006 has no legal sanctity. It has also been stated that the petitioner was never heard before passing the impugned orders. It has also been stated that the mining lease has not been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, hence it cannot be revoked. It has been specifically stated that the alleged recommendation dated 9-7-2006, impugned in this writ petition, ceased to have any effect whatsoever after execution of lease deed by the State itself on 31-7-2006. In paragraph no.6 of the rejoinder affidavit it has been stated that Writ Petition No. 1178(M/B) of 2003 Vikram Singh Vs. District Magistrate, Dehradun and another was withdrawn by the petitioner on 13-10-2006 after the registered mining lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner. In this view of the matter any interim direction to decide the representation and decision on the representation dated 1-3-2004 ceased to have any effect because the mining lease was executed in favour of the petitioner on 31-7-2006. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the entire material on record, this fact is not disputed that the mining lease was executed with the prior approval of the Central Government as well as State Government. After execution of the lease deed on 31-7-2006, the Central Government vide Annexure No. 14 revoked the earlier permission granted in favour of the petitioner. It is significant to mention that on the basis of the permission dated 18-01-2002 given by the Central Government and conditions contained therein, the lease deed was executed by the District Magistrate Pauri Garhwal on behalf of the Governor of the State of Uttaranchal in favour of the petitioner and the same was got registered in the office of the Sub Registrar Sri Nagar (Garhwal). Thus the State Government 6 had already acted upon in the light of the earlier permission. In the letter dated 9-7-2006 written by the Nodal Officer to Sri K.B.Singh, Deputy Conservator of Forest (Central), wherein a reference was made of the Writ Petition No. 778 (M/B) of 2003 Vikram Singh Aswal Vs. State and others. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner and direction was given in that writ petition to decide the representation of the petitioner only. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner informed the Court that the writ petition was rendered infructuous after the mining lease deed was executed by the State Government on 31-7-2006 in favour of the petitioner and the writ petition was withdrawn on 13-10-2006. The letter by the Nodal Officer was written on the basis of averments made in the earlier writ petition. In this view of the matter, the letter dated 1-9-2006 sent by Nodal Officer was rendered infructuous after execution of the lease deed by the State Government on 31-7-2006. For the reasons and discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned order dated 1-09-2006 (Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition) as well as letter/order dated 9-7-2006 (Annexure S-1 to the Supplementary Affidavit filed on 3-5-2007 are liable to be quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 1-9-2006 (Annexure No. 14) as well as the order dated 9-7- 2006 (Annexure No. S-1 to the Supplementary Affidavit filed by the petitioner on 3-5-2007) are hereby quashed. No order as to costs. All pending applications stand disposed of. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 7 8 9 10