Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8054 of 2018 Petitioner :- Wajid Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Mohd. Fazal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale,Chief Justice Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard Mr. S.G. Hasnain, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Syed Mohd. Fazal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
The petitioner has called into question a notice/advertisement dated 20.01.2018, issued by the third respondent, inviting e- tenders in respect of sand block/plot Nos. 92, 93/1, 94, 116/1, 117/1, 118/1, 119/1, 120/1 and 192/1 and Lot No. 34, serial no. 5, at Village Kaluwala Pahadipur, Tehsil Behat, District Saharanpur, measuring 46.32 hectares. It appears that the petitioner from 05.04.2006 to 04.04.2009 and then from 05.04.2009 till 04.04.2012 was granted lease in respect of Lot No. 34. It is not in dispute that in Writ Petition No. 9416 (M/B) of 2010, vide order dated 29.4.2011, this Court stopped in all districts of U.P., the mining activities till grant of environmental clearance. As a result thereof, petitioner contends, from the midnight 30.6.2011 all mining activities, including that of the petitioner, were stopped. It is pertinent to notice that, though petitioner claims that he was not allowed to carry on mining operations from 1.7.2011, he applied for the first time, seeking environmental clearance on 6.3.2014 i.e. after expiry of the period of lease, and it was granted to him on 6.3.2014. Respondent No. 3, thereafter vide its letter dated 29.12.2014 granted extension to all lease holders, who, according to the petitioner, were obstructed mining operations. On 26.6.2015 this Court in PIL No. 5507 of 2015, again vide order dated 25.6.2015 stopped all mining operations, and admitted the said petition framing questions for considerations, including the question, whether there could be execution of lease deed on the basis of an order of approval granted by the competent authority for renewal of earlier lease on a date subsequent to 31.05.2012 ? This PIL is still pending and the interim order operates till today. In this backdrop, the tender in question has been invited. The petitioner seeks stay of the tender process.
We are not entering into correctness of the order dated 29.12.2014, whereby the District Magistrate granted extension of time. We have, however, already taken a view in several petitions that such an extension cannot be granted and the only remedy available to such lease holders is to seek damages in appropriate proceedings for the loss of business. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that even the extended period got over long back. One of the orders dated 11.4.2017 in Writ-C No. 55919 of 2016 passed by this Court requires to be noticed, in which, after considering the judgments relied upon by the parties, in the concluding paragraph, it was 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."
We are informed that the order of extension has been stayed in some other proceedings pending before this Court though no such order was placed before us. Be that as it may, under any circumstance, in our opinion, it is not open to the petitioner to come before this Court after four years and challenge e-auction of the sand block in dispute on the ground that he is entitled for further extension of time. 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 as such 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 :- 27.2.2018 VMA (Dilip B Bhosale, CJ) (Suneet Kumar, J)