Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14167 of 2019 Petitioner :- Phool Chand Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Bilas Yadav,Sri O P Singh(Senior Advocate) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Petitioner was granted lease for mining of the minor mineral (ordinary sand) for five years. The District Magistrate by the order dated 12.12.2018 has cancelled the lease of the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has filed an appeal in terms of Rule 77 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur respondent no.2 on 18.1.2019.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has moved an application for interim order but the said application has not been disposed off.
We have heard Sri Ram Bilas Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
The Supreme Court in case of Mool Chanda Yadav Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Ltd., 1982 Law Suit (SC) 159 has held that if an order is challenged in the appeal and if any serious consequences are issued pursuant to the impugned order, the appellate authority should consider the application for the interim order for interim protection. The relevant part of the judgment of the Supreme Court reads as under :-
"4. We heard Mr. S.N. Kacker, learned Counsel for the appellants, and the respondents appeared by Caveat through Mr. Manoj Swarup, Advocate. We are not inclined to examine any contention on merits at present, but we would like to notice of the emerging situation if the operation of the order under appeal is not suspended during the pendency of the appeal. If the F.
A.F.O. is allowed, obviously Mool Chand Yadav would be entitled to continue in possession. Now, if the order is not suspended in order to avoid any action in contempt pending the appeal, Mool Chand would have to vacate the room and handover the possession to the respondents in obedience to the Court's order. We are in full agreement with Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned advocate for respondents, that the Court's order cannot be flouted and even a covert disrespect to Court's order cannot be tolerated. But if orders are challenged and the appeals are pending, one cannot permit a swinging pendulum continuously taking place during the pendency of the appeal, Mr. Manoj Swarup may be wholly right in submitting that there is intentional flouting of the" Court's order. We are not interdicting that finding. But judicial approach requires that during the pendency of the appeal the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended. More so when appeal is admitted. Previous history of litigation cannot be overlooked. And it is not seriously disputed that the whole of the building, Hari Bhawan, except one room in dispute is in possession of the Corporation. We accordingly suspend the operation of the order dated 6th August 1982 directing the appellants to handover the possession of the room to the respondents till the disposal of the first appeal against that order pending in the High Court of Allahabad. Mr. Manoj Swarup requests that both the earlier and later Appeals should be heard together as early as possible, We order accordingly and request the High Court if it considers proper in its own discretion to hear both the appeals as expeditiously as possible in order to avoid the continuance of the boiling situation. The appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."
Applying the said principle, we grant liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh application for interim protection before respondent no.2 within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event, the petitioner files an application, we hope and trust that respondent no.2 shall pass appropriate order in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court expeditiously.
Present petition stands disposed off.
It is made clear that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner till his application for interim order is not disposed off.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 S. Singh