Page 200 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

182 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

first-come-first-served when used for alienation of natural resources/public
property are likely to be misused by unscrupulous people who are only in-
terested in garnering maximum financial benefit and have no respect for
the constitutional ethos and values. In other words, while transferring or al-
ienating the natural resources, the State is duty bound to adopt the method
of auction by giving wide publicity so that all eligible persons can partici-
pate in the process.”
17. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court has been referred to
and relied upon by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of
Raj Kumar Chaudhary (supra). In Raj Kumar Chaudhary (supra), the petitioner was
aggrieved by the order of the State Government, by which it rejected the peti-
tioner’s application for renewal of the mining lease of sand (minor mineral). The
lease period came to an end in the year 2003, on which the applications were in-
vited. The petitioner claimed for renewal under Rule 6A of the U.P. Minor Min-
erals (Concession) Rules, 1963, and alleged that since he had not breached any of
the conditions or provisions of the lease, he was entitled for renewal of the lease
in accordance with law. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the ap-
plication was forwarded by the District Magistrate with his recommendation to
the State Government. The State Government had earlier approved the renewal,
but with the change of the Government of the State, the opinion in renewal of the
mining lease also was changed. The State Government took the stance that the
petitioner was granted lease in the year 2001 in pursuance to the preferential
rights given to him as he belonged to ‘Mallah’ caste, under Rule 9A, and which
preferential rights, to the complete exclusion of persons belonging to other
castes, had been declared as ultra vires by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High
Court. As Rule 9A came to be deleted from the statute, the renewal of the lease in
favour of the petitioner was not liable to be considered. In such circumstances,
the Supreme Court, while holding that the State Government could not be said to
have acted arbitrarily or in violation of the statutory rule of renewal in refusing
the approval for the renewal of the lease, observed thus :
“9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is claim-
ing right for renewal of lease under Rule 6-A, which provides as follows :-
“6-A. Application fee etc., for renewal of mining lease. - (1) An
application for renewal of mining lease may be made at least six
months before the date of expiry of the mining lease along with four
copies of the map of lease hold area showing clearly the area ap-
plied for renewal and the provision of clauses (a) and (d) of sub-
rule (1) of Rule 6 shall mutatis mutandis apply.
(2) The State Government may condone the delay caused in mak-
ing the application for renewal of mining lease after the period
specified in sub-rule (1).”
10. The petitioner’s right for renewal of lease under Rule 6-A could be
considered under the subsisting rule, if the category, in which he had ap-
plied, was still allowed the exclusive right, for the purpose of fresh grant.
He cannot claim grant of renewal, if he had taken benefit of any preference,
which was no longer available at the time of renewal.
11. Since the petitioner has taken the benefit of preference, as no person of
other category could apply at the relevant time when he was granted lease
and the Rule of granting preference to certain class has been struck off by
the Full Bench as ultra vires, the petitioner cannot claim any right for grant
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  200