The Allahabad High Court in the case M/S Manali Vintrade Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others observed and has held that the right to extension of lease can either be derived from the statutory provision or from the terms of lease deed entered into by the parties. Thus, no such extension can be granted by the court because judicial order prevented petitioner from carrying out mining activities.
The bench comprising of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Manoj Bajaj in the case observed and has relied on the case Dharmendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that the right to extension of lease either flows from a statutory provision or from the terms of the lease between the parties concerned and if there being an obstructed period of by reason of a judicial interdict, that itself will not give window in order to extend the lease by not following the statutory provisions, especially when the terms of the lease do not provide for any consequences thereof.
The court in the case observed and has held that pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the permit of mining cannot be extended.
In the present case, the petitioner applied for license or permit under an advertisement by which E- tenders were invited under Rule 23(2)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. The court accepted the tender of the petitioner and permit was granted to him for six months expect that during monsoon season for the months of July, August and September no mining would be done.
Therefore, in the said case, one Dileep Singh approached the National Green Tribunal wherein it alleged that the petitioner did not have proper environmental clearance certificate. Thus, the NGT granted an interim stay on mining activities by the petitioner on the land disputed.
Further, the court while disposing of the original application by Dileep Singh, NGT directed the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Uttar Pradesh, SEIAA to revisit the environmental clearance being issued to the petitioner within the period of two months and in the meanwhile, thus, the interim order would continue to operate. The District Magistrate in its order stated that the petitioner be permitted to work for the remaining five months and for 21 days, in lieu of the orders passed by the National Green Tribunal, NGT.
The court withdrawn the said order while relying upon the order of the High Court passed in Vijay Kumar Dwivedi vs. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.,
The court also referred to the case Beg Raj Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. and Chowgule and Company Private Limited Vs. Goa Foundation and others, wherein it has been contended by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that if due to litigation, the petitioner is not able to carry out mining activities during subsistence of the license period, then period of time of mining must be extended.
On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent observed and has relied on the case Dharmendra Kumar Singh to argue that if work of the petitioner was hindered because of an intervening litigation during the period of lease, and the period expired, then the lease, license or permit could only be extended if there was a statutory provision for extension or if there was any condition in the lease deed to extend the period which had been wasted because of the intervening litigation.
The court in the case observed that the work of the petitioner was hampered due to interim judicial orders and that the petitioner had the remedy of refund under Rule 41(h) of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals, the Concession Rules, 2021.
The court directed that the petitioner be refunded the royalty for the period he did not work for.
Accordingly, the court allowed the plea.
