9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include the policy decision of the State of Uttar Pradesh regarding sand mining leases, the renewal of a mining lease, the decision to hold an auction of mining rights, the challenge to the State Government's order, and the appellant's right to operate a sand mine for a minimum period of three years. Policy Decision and Lease Renewal: The State of Uttar Pradesh made a policy decision for remission of the lease of the river bed Yamuna for sand mining. The appellant applied for a sand mining lease in accordance with this policy decision and was granted a lease for one year, which was later extended for two years due to an error in the initial lease term. However, during this time, the Government decided to hold an auction of the sand mining lease. Challenge to State Government's Order: A competitor aspirant of the appellant filed a revision against the extension of the lease granted to the appellant, leading to the State Government setting aside the Collector's order and deciding to hold an auction for mining rights. The High Court upheld the State Government's decision, stating that the auction would serve public interest by generating higher revenue for the State Government. Appellant's Claim and Relief: The appellant contended that he had identified and explored the mining area, incurring significant expenses, and should have been entitled to operate the mine for a minimum of three years as per the State Government's policy. The appellant argued that the State Government unjustly interfered with his rights, especially considering no auction had taken place and no rights were created in favor of the competitor. Judgment and Relief Granted: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the appellant should be allowed to operate the mine for a full period of three years, adjusting for the time already operated. The Court held that the delay in the final decision was not attributable to the appellant, no third-party interests were created, and the State Government was obligated to honor its policy decision regarding the mining lease. The appellant was directed to pay royalties and other payments to the State Government as per the lease terms.
|
