M/S M.m. Contractor and Supplier Thru. Prop. Rahul Dwivedi v. … on 12 Nov 2025

Judgment

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated May 25, 2019 passed by the respondent no.1 and a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to provide further time to the petitioner by extending the lease period to adjust the amount in the new scheme of the lease of mines. 2 WRIC No. - 679 of 2022 This is a third round of litigation before the High

2. Court.

3. The factual matrix in the case is that the Government has initially invited the bid for mining lease for a period of six months. The petitioner's bid being the highest was found responsive and a letter of indent was issued by the District Collector/Licensing Authority, Auraiya on May 24, 2017 in respect of certain portion of Gata No.99, Village Bijhalpur, Tehsil Ajitmal, District Auraiya. Thereafter a No Objection Certificate was also issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Auraiya. Further formalities were also completed by the Revenue Department and the environmental clearance certificate was also granted to the petitioner, with that all the formalities were completed for starting the mining activities.

4. As per the bid of the petitioner, he had to deposit the balance bid amount, as such a demand of Rs.8,65,00,444/- was raised on June 17, 2017 by the Additional Collector. Apart from it, 10% of the bid amount was also required to be paid by the petitioner towards the District Mineral Foundation Trust, for which a demand of Rs.80,94,344/- for payment of outstanding amount was raised against the petitioner. Since, these payments were not made, hence the bid of petitioner was cancelled and a demand for the payment of the outstanding amount was raised.

5. Against the said demand, the petitioner filed a representation dated August 14,2017 before the State Government. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the State authorities in deciding the representation, the petitioner approached this Court by means of writ petition being Writ Petition No.23755 of 2017 (M/B) of 2017, wherein this Hon'ble Court had disposed of the writ petition on October 5, 2017, which reads as follows:- 3 WRIC No. - 679 of 2022 "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, has prayed that a direction be issued to the respondent no.1 to consider and decide the appeal/representation preferred by it which is said to be pending before the State Government. to deposit Pursuant to e-tendering process for grant of permit for excavation of mineral, a letter of indent was issued to the petitioner by the District Collector/Licensing Authority, Auraiya on 24.05.2017 in respect of certain portion of Gata No.99, village-Bijhalpur, Tehsil-Ajitmal, district-Auraiya. The petitioner could not deposit the amount and accordingly a notice of demand was given to the petitioner by the District Magistrate on 17.06.2017 requiring the a sum of petitioner Rs.8,09,43,444/-. In addition to the said outstanding amount, the petitioner was also required to deposit 10% of the highest bid amount for District Mining Foundation Trust. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner tender there was no documents/conditions, requirement of deposition of 10% amount of the highest bid for District Mining Foundation Trust, as such the said demand notice dated 17.06.2017 so far as the same relates to the amount for District Mining Foundation Trust is unlawful. On non-deposition of the amount as demanded the District Collector/Licensing Authority, Auraiya has cancelled the letter of indent by means of an the petitioner, 4 WRIC No. - 679 of 2022 order dated 17.07.2017. The petitioner is said to have preferred a representation dated 14.08.2017 before the State Government with the prayer that the order of the District Collector, Auraiya dated 17.07.2017 be set aside and the petitioner may not be required to deposit 10% of the highest bid amount for District Mining Foundation Trust and further that the petitioner be permitted six months additional time to deposit rest of the amount. The lease/permit for mining is granted under U.P. Mining Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. Rule 77 provides that an appeal to be preferred before the Divisional Commissioner against any order passed by the District Officer i.e. District Collector. Rule 78 provides that the State Government may either suo motu at any time or on an application made within 90 days from the date of communication of the order, call for examination of the record relating to any order passed or proceeding taken by the District Officer or Director or the Divisional Commissioner and pass such orders as may be thought fit. Thus, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of cancellation of letter of indent, he can either approach the Divisional Commissioner under Rule 77 or the State Government under Rule 78. It is not borne out from the pleadings available on record as to whether the alleged representation/appeal dated 14.08.2017, which has been annexed as annexure no.9 to the writ petition, has actually been received in the office of respondent no.1 or not. Accordingly, without entering into the merit of the claim of the petitioner, this writ petition is finally disposed of with liberty to the petitioner 5 WRIC No. - 679 of 2022 to either invoke the remedy available under Rule 77 or Rule 78 of U.P. Mining Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. If any such remedy is invoked as above, the appeal/revision which may be preferred by the petitioner, shall be disposed of by the authority concerned expeditiously and in accordance with law. At this juncture, learned counsel representing the State has submitted that it is not only that the petitioner has failed to deposit 10% amount of the highest bid for District Mining Foundation Trust but he has also failed to deposit a sum of Rs.8,09,43,444/- out of the total amount of petitioner's bid i.e. Rs.8,65,23,444/-. Thus, all the aforesaid aspects of the matter will be considered by the authority concerned in case the petitioner prefers an appeal or revision under Rule 77 or under Rule 78 of U.P. Mining Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963."

6. Instead of filing the appeal or revision within the stipulated time under Rules 77 or 78 of Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1963') the petitioner again approached this Court by means of writ petition being Writ Petition (M/S) No.5458 of 2018, which was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court on February 21, 2018, which is reproduced hereunder- "This petition filed by the petitioner arises out of the same cause in respect of which the petitioner had previously filed Writ Petition No. 23755 (MB) of 2017. From the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above writ petition on 5.10.2017, the following paragraph deserves to be noted: 6 WRIC No. - 679 of 2022 "It is not borne out from the pleadings available on record as to whether the alleged representation/appeal dated 14.08.2017, which has been annexed as annexure no.9 to the writ petition, has actually been received in the office of respondent no.1 or not." The present petition with a prayer for a direction to the appellate authority to decide the same very appeal about which a doubt was expressed by this Court as regards its presentation, has come to be filed without any disclosure of the same being filed as per the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963. From a perusal of the rules, it is gathered that the proforma of appeal/revision of which the remedy is provided under Rule 77 and 78 respectively, and the necessary fee is specified under Rule 79. The appeal does not seem to have been filed in the prescribed proforma alongwith requisite fee. Thus, the direction prayed for by means of this petition under Article 227 cannot be entertained. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be permitted to file an appeal in the prescribed proforma alongwith requisite fee. Without entering into the merit or on the aspect of limitation, it is open to the petitioner to avail the remedy available to him under the rules by making necessary compliance. 7 WRIC No. - 679 of 2022 Since the petitioner's appeal itself is defective and not in accordance with the statutory rules, the present petition is thus, not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed. However, dismissal of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may not come in the way of availing the remedy open to the petitioner under law, if any."

7. The petitioner after around two years, that is in the year 2019 filed the revision before the Revisional Authority. The respondent no.1 decided the revision vide order

8. dated May 25, 2019, which is impugned herein. Thereafter, the instant writ petition has been filed

9. with the following reliefs:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 25.05.2019 passed by the opposite party no.1 is being annexed as an Annexure No.11 along with this writ petition. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding to the opposite parties to provide further time to the petitioner by extending the lease period to adjust this amount in the new scheme of the lease of mines which has already been launched by the opposite parties. III. Issue a writ, order or direction thereby commanding to the opposite parties to refund the amount to the petitioner in case the amount is not adjusted in any scheme of new lease launched by the opposite parties." 8 WRIC No. - 679 of 2022

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that because of the fault of the previous lawyer, the revision could not be filed within time. He further submitted that the revisional order is incorrect and liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the deposit of the District Mineral Foundation Trust, and hence, he is not liable to pay the aforesaid amount. He also submitted that in terms of the bid, there was nothing about the District Mineral Foundation Trust, and hence, he is not liable to pay this amount.

11. He further submitted that the lease was granted in the month of June, 2017 for a period of six months, however because of the monsoons, mining was not possible, and hence, he is not liable to pay the additional demand raised by the respondents.

12. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the entire litigation has been drawn out simply to delay the payment of amount which is due to the Government. The petitioner has participated in the tender being fully aware of the business, terrain and season. Thereafter, his bid being the highest, the tender was awarded to the petitioner. He has failed to deposit the amount as well as the amount towards the District Mineral Foundation Trust, hence a demand was raised against the petitioner to deposit the money but the petitioner failed to deposit the money, with the result that the respondents had no option but to cancel the lease deed. He further submitted that in the first round of litigation the petitioner has filed a writ petition in which the Court specifically directed the petitioner to approach the revisional Court under Rules 77 or 78 of the Rules of 1963. However, instead of approaching the Court within time as stipulated under Rule 78 of the Rules of 1963, the petitioner had filed the revision after the inordinate delay of two years wherein no reasonable grounds for delay were explained in the revision petition. 9 WRIC No. - 679 of 2022

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

14. In the impugned order, the revisional Court has categorically dealt with all the issues raised by the petitioner. It has been stated therein that the petitioner before cancellation of the lease deed was served with sufficient notices but the petitioner failed to deposit the said amount mentioned hereinabove with the result that the mining lease was terminated. It is to be noted that the procedure for grant of 15. lease/permit for mining is provided under the Rules of 1963.

16. The relevant Rules 77, 78 and 79 of the Rules of 1963, are as follows:- "77. Appeal- An appeal against an order passed under these rules by the District Officer of the Committee shall lie to the Divisional Commissioner within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of such order to the party aggrieved.

78. Revisions.- The State Government may either suo moto at any time or on an application made within ninety days from the date of communication of the order, call for an examination of the record relating to any order passed proceedings taken by the District Officer Committee, Director or the Divisional Commissioner under these rules and pass such orders as it may think fit.

79. Fees.- The appeal under Rule 77 or an application under Rule 78 shall be presented in Form MM-13 in duplicate and be accompanied with a treasury receipt showing that a fee of Twenty Five Hundred rupees has been paid in Government Treasury to the credit of the State 10 WRIC No. - 679 of 2022 Government under the head specified under Rule 64."

17. Rule 77 thereof provided that the appeal to be preferred before the Divisional Commissioner against the order passed by the District Collector. Rule 78 of the Rules of 1963 also provides that the State Government may either suo moto at any time or on an application made within ninety days from the date of communication of the order, call for examination of the record with regard to the order passed or proceedings taken by the District Officer or the Director or the Divisional Commissioner and pass such orders as may be thought fit. Rule 79 provides that the requisite fee is to be paid by the applicant. It is further found that the revision filed by the 18. petitioner was not in accordance with law as per Rule 78 of the Rules of 1963. Moreover, the same was filed after a period of two years, that is sometime in 2019 whereas the time granted to file the revision is only 90 days. Though, the lease was terminated on July 17, 2017 but in spite of directions of the Court on October 5, 2017 and February 21, 2018, no revision was preferred till 2019. Accordingly, we find that there is an inordinate delay in filing the revision. The revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as well as on the ground that the revision was not filed properly.

19. In view of the aforesaid, we see no illegality in the impugned order, and accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. (Prashant Kumar, J) I agree. (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) November 12, 2025 Arjun/- ARJUN PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench