Reserved Judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.76 of 2008 (M/S) M/s Kilkileshwar Mining Company through its Partner Satey Singh Rana, R/O Kailash Gate, Muni-ke-reti-, Tehri Garhwal and another. …… Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Dehradun and two others. … Respondents. Sri B.P.Nautiyal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State. Sri V.K.Kohli, Senior Advocate with Sri T.C.Pandey, learned counsel for the intervener-Uttarakhand State Co-operate Federation Limited, Dehradnun. Date October 23, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- I. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 25-1-2001 (Annexure No.6) and order dated 28-10-2003 (Annexure No. 13) passed by respondent No.2, order dated 20-9-2004 (Annexure No. 14) passed by respondent no. 3 and order dated 20-12-2007 (Annexure No. 17) passed by the respondent no.1. II. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioners to carry on the mining operation in pursuance of the mining lease deeds duly renewed as per renewal lease dated July 21, 2000 and 1- 8-2000 in favour of the petitioners. III. To issue any other writ order or direction commanding the respondent, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IV. Award the cost of the petition. Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, according to the petitioners are that the petitioners were carrying on the business of mines and minerals in district Tehri Garhwal. The petitioner no. 1 was granted mining lease on 8th May, 1987 while petitioner no.2 was granted a mining lease on 16th May, 1987 initially for a term of ten years therefrom in respect of mining in two different villages and for different area. The petitioners have annexed copies of the same as Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition. In pursuance of the lease deeds permission was accorded to the petitioners and they were carrying on mining operations. The lease had been renewed for a further period of five years on 27th June 1994 vide Annexure No. 3. Both the lease deeds were further renewed for a further period of ten years on 21-7-2000 and 1-8- 2000 in respect of lease granted to the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 respectively vide Annexure No.4. The petitioners have not violated any Rules framed under the Mining and Mineral Rules 1963. On 12-1-2001, the State Government issued a Circular directing all the District Magistrates in the State of Uttarakhand not to renew any contract/agreement/lease deed including the mining lease deeds after the expiry of such deeds and no new contract/agreement/lease deed be issued till further orders. The Circular dated 12-1-2001 came into force with immediate effect. In pursuance to this Circular, the District Magistrate Tehri Garhwal passed an order dated 25-1-2001 thereby the renewal sanction dated 21-7-2000 in favour of the petitioner no.1 was cancelled with immediate effect. The order dated 25-1-2001 was challenged by the petitioner no. 1 before Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 526 (M/B) of 2001, M/s Satey Singh, Bachan Singh Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another. This Court ultimately passed order dated 28-3-2001 to the following effect:- “In view of the fact that the delegatee has cancelled the renewal of the lease made by the delegator, we set aside the order dated 25.1.2001 passed by him (Respondent no.2). However, it is left open to the State Government to pass appropriate order in relation to the renewal of the lease of the petitioner as it thinks fit and proper and in accordance with law.” According to the petitioners, M/s Satey Singh Bachan Singh was permitted to carry on the mining operation by letter dated 26-7-2001. In the meantime on 25.4.2001 the petitioner no.1 made a representation before the respondent no.2 with a prayer to recall his order dated 25-1-2001 in the light of the judgment dated 28-3-2001 passed by this Court. The respondent no.2, instead of cancelling the order dated 25-1-2001, stopped the petitioners from carrying on mining operation work after 7th May, 2002, though according to them, the mining lease deed was initially renewed upto 15th May, 2002. It has been inter alia stated in pagraph no. 18 of the writ petition that the action of the respondent no.2 was illegal and without jurisdiction. There is no provision under the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963, to cancel a renewed lease deed in pursuance of the Circular wherein the respondent no. 2 is asked not to renew any lease future. The act on the part of the respondent no.2 is arbitrary and violates the provisions of the said Rules. Not only this, the respondent no.2 on 4-10-2002 passed an order thereby rejecting the application of the lease holder and declining to interfere with the order dated 25-1-2001 passed by the respondent no.2. The order dated 4-10-2002 passed by the respondent no.2 was challenged before the Commissioner in appeal No. 7/2002-03, which was allowed vide order dated 3-6-2003. The petitioner no. 1 Satye Singh Rana made a representation on 5-6- 2003 to the respondent no.2 to restore the mining lease and not to interfere in the mining operation. The petitioners filed a Writ Petition No. 777 (M/B) of 2003 before this Court praying for writ of mandamus to command the respondent no.2 to issue Ramanna to the petitioners and to allow them to carry on mining operation work. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition by order dated 9-10-2003 with the observations, detailed hereunder:- “Since the Collector has yet to take decision in compliance of the order passed by the appellate court i.e. Commissioner, therefore, the relief prayed for cannot be granted to the petitioners. However, it is provided that the Collector shall take a decision in the matter as directed by the appellate authority within a period of ten days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.” Thereafter the respondent no.2 passed an order dated 27/28-10-2003 (copy Annexure No. 13)) rejecting the application of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners challenged the order dated 27/28-10-2003 before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1216 of 2003 (M/S), wherein liberty was given to the petitioners to file appeal. The appeal too was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 20-9-2004 (copy Annexure No. 14). The petitioners came up before this Court in writ petition ( No.948 of 2004 (M/S), which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file revision by order dated10-4-2007. The petitioners thereafter preferred revision before the State Government. The revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed vide order dated 20- 12-2007 (copy Annexure No. 17 to the writ petition). According to the petitioners, the said order has been passed by the respondent no. 1 on the basis of an order dated 1-12-2007 passed by the Chief Minister, based on the report dated 12-11-2007 submitted by the Chief Secretary, therefore, the order dated 20-12-2007 is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. The respondents filed its counter affidavit. The affidavit has been sworn in by the then Deputy Secretary, Industry, Uttarakhand. In paragraph no. 2 of the counter affidavit, following averments have been made:- “2. That the erstwhile State of U.P. had granted a mining lease in respect of Minor Minerals in District-Tehri Garhwal to M/s Rajendra Rawat & Co. (Proprietor Sri. Ramesh Singh Rawat) and M/s Sushila Devi & Sri. Satey Singh Rana on 8th May 1987 and 16th May, 1987 for 10 years. On 1-6-1994 while extending the said two mining leases to 15 years, a supplementary mining lease was granted in favour of M/s Kilkileshwar Mining Co. in place of M/s Rajendra Rawat & Co. (Proprietor Sri. Ramesh Singh Rawat). Before the creation of the new State the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal had renewed the mining leases about two years before the expiry of the lease period. After the formation of the new State it was decided by the Govt. that after the expiry of the original lease period no lease shall be renewed. In pursuance of the said policy decision of the State Govt. the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal cancelled the renewal of the leases in accordance with rule 8(2 kha) of the then prevailing Rules. Aggrieved by the order of cancellation of renewal the petitioners resorted to the remedy available under the Rules and also filed writ petition no. 206(M/B) of 2002 (Kilkileshwar Mining Co. Vs. State & others). Another writ petition no. 207 (M/B) of 2002 was filed by M/S Sushila Devi. The petitioners subsequently filed writ petition no. 277 (M/B) of 2003, 1216 (M/B) of 2004 and 948 (M/B) of 2004. All the aforesaid writ petitions have already been disposed of by the Hon’ble Court. In pursuance of the Govt. order no. 718/vkS0fo0/03- 234-kha/2001 dated 23-1003 the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal vide his order dated 28-10-03 had disposed of the application of the petitioners. Copy of the order dated 28-10-03 is being annexed as ANNEXURE NO.CA-1 to this affidavit. In compliance with the Hon’ble Court’s order dated 20-12-07 passed in writ petition no. 948 (M/B) of 2004, appropriate decision had been taken vide the order no. 5135/VII-2- 07/234/kha/2001 dated 20-12-2007 in the light of the revised mining policy of the State contained in the Govt. order no. 2498/vkS0fo0-22-kha/2001 dated 17-10-02. A copy of the government Order dated 17/10/2002 is being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO. CA-2 to this affidavit.” In other paragraphs of the counter affidavit also, there is denial of the averments made in the writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the averments made in the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit, filed by the State, along with its enclosures. At the outset, it may be mentioned that initially the mining lease dated 8th May 1987 was executed between the Governor of Uttar Pradesh and one Rajendra Rawat and Co., Proprietor Ramesh Singh Rawat under the provisions of U.P.Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 in respect of land measuring 24 acres (479 Nali, 7 Muthi) situate at village Naithana, Patti Chauras, Tahsil Deoprayag, District Tehri Garhwal. The lease was for a period of ten years. Supplementary mining lease was granted in favour of petitioner no.1 M/s Kilkileshwar Mining Co. in place of M/s Rajendra Rawat and Co. on 1-6-1994, as is obvious from the averments made in paragraph no.2 of the counter affidavit. Another Mining Lease was initially executed in favour of C.V.Singh and Co., Proprietor Sri Chandrabeer Singh on 16th May 1987 in respect of 488 Nali 2 Muthi land (24.4 Acres) situate at village Ranihat, Patti Chauras, Tahsil Deoprayag, Pargana Kirtinagar, district Tehri Garhwal, which was also for a period of ten years. Supplementary Lease Deed was executed on 21st June 1994 in favour of Sri Satye Singh Rana S/O Sri Matbar Singh Rana and Smt. Susheela Devi in place of C.V.Singh and Company. The lease period of both the supplementary lease deed was fifteen years. It is an admitted fact that Writ Petition No. 526 (M/B) of 2001 was filed only by the petitioner in the name of M/s Satey Singh, Bachan Singh through its partner Satey Singh Rana, S/O Sri Matbar Singh Rana, R/O Kailash Gate Muniki Reti, District Tehri Garhwal. In that writ petition petitioner no. 2 Susheela Devi had not joined the petitioner no.1. It is also not disputed that Writ Petition No. 777 (M/B) of 2003 was filed by both the petitioners for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 District Magistrate Tehri Garhwal to issue a Ramanna to the petitioner to continue mining operations. A perusal of record also shows that separate orders were passed by the respondent no.2 on 25-1-2001 thereby cancelling the renewal of mining lease in favour of the two petitioners. It has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no such direction in the Circular dated 12-1-2001 issued to by the State Government to cancel the lease on the expiry of their terms. The only direction issued to the District Magistrates is to the effect that no lease shall be issued and on the expiry of the lease renewal should not be effected. Learned counsel submitted that the mining lease were already renewed by the District Magistrate Tehri Garhwal on 21-7- 2000 in respect of mining lease of petitioner no.1 and on 1-8-2000 in respect of lease of petitioner no.2 for a further period of ten years from the date of expiry, i.e. 8th May 1997 and 15th May 1997 as is clear from Annexure 4 to the writ petition and the contract between the two parties was complete after execution of the renewal deed. As such, the order dated 25-1-2001 passed by the respondent no. 2 is not tenable in the eye of law, especially because no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before passing the order dated 25-1-2001. In reply, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has urged that the petitioners lease period was to expire on 7th May 2002, therefore, the petitioners could not claim further renewal beyond that period in view of the direction contained in the Circular dated 12-1-2001 and the order of cancellation of renewal does not call for interference. It would not be out of place to mention here that so far as the cancellation of renewal of lease in respect of lease deed of petitioner no. 1 M/s Satey Singh Rana, Partner of M/s Kilkileshwar Mining Company is concerned, the petitioner no. 1 had already challenged the order dated 25-1-2001 before the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 526 (M/B) of 2001 M/s Satey Singh, Bachan Singh Vs. State of Uttaranchal and another, which was decided vide order dated 28-3-2001. The petitioner no. 2 had not joined the petitioner no.1 in that writ petition. In the operative portion of the order, while setting aside the order dated 25-1-201, it was left open to the State Government to pass appropriate order in relation to the renewal of the lease of the petitioner as it thinks fit and proper and in accordance with law. The order passed by this Court was not challenged before the Apex Court and the same attained finality. The respondents have utterly failed to establish that the State Government ever passed independent and appropriate order in the light of the observations and as per order dated 28-3- 2001 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, therefore, all consequent order dated 28-10-2003 passed by the respondent no.2 (copy Annexure No. 13), order dated 20-9-2004 passed by the Commissioner (respondent no.3) in appeal (copy Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition) and the order dated 20-12-2007 passed by the respondent no.1 in revision (copy Annexure No. 17) are liable to be set aside. So far as the cancellation of renewal of lease deed of petitioner no.2 is concerned, the contract agreement (renewal of lease deed) in respect of mining lease of petitioner no.2 was executed on 1-8-2000 on non-judicial stamp of Rs. 75,000/-. It is not disputed that contract of renewal of lease deed was complete between the parties. It is pertinent to note that the Circular dated 12-1-2001 issued by the State Government nowhere provides that any such agreements, which had already been executed earlier for the purposes of renewal of lease deeds, shall be cancelled. From a plain reading of the Circular what is evident is that no renewal shall be made in future. It is not the case of the respondents that the mining lease agreement by which the two lease have been renewed were not in accordance with law or that the mining lease agreements executed between the parties on 21-7-2000 and 1-8- 2001 were violative of any Rules framed under the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 or the Rules framed by the Uttaranchal State in that regard. In the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that the agreement between the petitioner no.2 and the respondents-State was complete on execution of for renewal of lease deed on 1-8-2000 and as violation of 1963 Rules has not been attributed in case of the petitioner no.2 also, therefore, the order of cancellation of the renewal by order dated 25-1-2001 has no legal sanctity so far as it relates to the case of petitioner no.2, hence the order dated 28-10-2003 passed by the District Magistrate concerned (copy Annexure No. 13) on the same line cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the order dated 20-9-2004 passed by the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri (copy Annexure No. 14) and the order dated 20-12-2007 passed by the respondent no.1 (copy Annexure No. 17) are also liable to be quashed so far as they relate to the cancellation of renewal of lease deed of petitioner no.2. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders passed by the respondents are quashed. The mining lease of the petitioners stand restored for the remaining period of renewed mining lease. However, it is clarified if the petitioners violate the conditions of the mining agreement, which were granted in their favour, the same can be cancelled after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to them, as has been provided in the Uttaranchal Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2001. Costs easy. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP