Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8233 of 2018 Petitioner :- Mahendra Nishad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishnaji Khare,Mrityunjay Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale,Chief Justice Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard Mr. Krishna Ji Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ramanand Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent-State.
The petitioner has called into question the notice/advertisement dated 9.2.2018, issued by the third respondent inviting e-tenders in respect of excavation of sand from Yamuna river zone 10 Khand No.34 situated at Sarai Aqueel, District Kaushambi. It appears that a mining lease was granted to the petitioner for a period of three years, i.e. from 10.2.2010 to 9.2.2013 in respect of this block/lot. The petitioner claims that on 5.6.2017, for the first time, he applied for extension of the lease on the ground that he was obstructed from carrying out mining operations for quite some time. We have already taken a view in several petitions that such an extension cannot be granted. One of such order is dated 11.4.2017 in Writ-C No. 55919 of 2016. In this order, after considering the judgments relied upon by the parties, in the concluding paragraph, this Court observed thus:
"As is evident from the principles enunciated by the Division Bench in Mohammad Yunus Hasan, a prayer for extension of lease is neither referable to Rule 68 which was held to be clearly inapplicable for consideration of such requests. The Division Bench has further noted that no provision of the lease executed between the parties warranted or mandated an extension of the term of the lease in case it came to be obstructed by an act of the respondents. It was further noted that the right to seek extension of the lease period must flow either from statutory provisions or from and under the terms of the lease itself. The judgment of the Division Bench in Mohammad Yunus Hasan squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The Division Bench in Mohammad Yunus Hasan had clearly refused to issue a mandamus for deciding the application of the petitioner therein for grant of extension of lease."
Be that as it may, under any circumstance, it is not open to the petitioner to come before this Court after five years and challenge e-auction of the sand block in dispute on the ground that he is entitled for extension of time. The only remedy available to the petitioner is to institute a civil suit for damages, if he so desires and is advised. Moreover, in view of the submissions made on behalf of the State, raising disputed questions of fact, it is not possible to enter into the same and record any finding in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Keeping this all in view and having regard to the latest policy of the State Government to invite e-tenders, we find no merit in the writ petition. Petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 RKK/-
(Dilip B Bhosale, CJ) (Suneet Kumar, J)