Ex. Hawaldar Vijendra Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

Mr. Paresh Tripathi and Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. N.S. Negi, Advocate for respondent no. 3. 19th November, 2009 Hon(cid:146)ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. N.S. Negi, Advocate for respondent no. 3. These are the two writ petitions before this Court and are being disposed of by a common order, as the subject matter of both the writ petitions is the same i.e. regarding grant of mining lease. The writ petition no. 978 of 2008 (M/S) was filed by the petitioner as he was aggrieved by order dated 28.1.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal whereby his application for grant of mining lease was rejected. The reason assigned in the rejection order by the District Magistrate was that since a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 668 (M/B) of 2 2006 is pending where the subject matter is the same, such an application cannot be considered by the District Magistrate. The Writ Petition No. 668 (M/B) of 2006 (New No. 1677 of 2007 (M/S)) has already been disposed of by this Court as the subject matter in the said writ petition stands covered by the decision of the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court in Doiwala Sehkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd. v. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2007) 11 SCC 641 where the policy of the Government albeit by an executive feat has been upheld in which a monopoly has been created in favour of the government corporation and no mining lease was granted to the individual. Although while rejecting the application of the petitioner, the District Magistrate has only referred to the pendency of the writ petition before this Court, the real cause for not considering the application of the petitioner seems to be that there is a policy already existing in the State of Uttarakhand whereby such mining lease could not have been given to any private individuals. Be that as it may, the State Government subsequently granted a mining lease, regarding the same area (for which the present petitioner was a contender) to one Sri Trilok Singh Chauhan vide order dated 20.7.2009. It is this order dated

20.7.2009 the petitioner has challenged in Writ Petition No. 1461 of 2009 (M/S). The petitioner contends that since his application was not considered on the grounds that a writ petition was pending before this Court there was no occasion to grant the mining lease, regarding the same area, to respondent no. 3. The argument of the petitioner appears to be logical and justified. Apart from the fact that the writ petition was pending before this Court, the State Government could not have granted the mining lease to a private individual as the same is in violation of its own policy. A policy that the State Government has formulated and the 3 validity of which has been upheld right upto the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court. On this legal position, mining lease which has been granted to respondent no. 3 is absolutely illegal and arbitrary and in clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, order dated 20.7.2009 (Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition no. 1461 of 2009 (M/S) is hereby quashed. Similarly, since giving a mining lease to a private individual would be in violation of the policy formulated by the State Government, this mining lease cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the prayers which have been made in Writ Petition No. 978 of 2008 (M/S) cannot be granted by this Court. Writ Petition No. 978 of 2008 (M/S) is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is being dismissed. No order as to costs.

19.11.2009 Avneet (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)