Vimla Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Vimla Devi vs State of U.P. and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Dec 06, 2007

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/494304

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/494304
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: V.M. Sahai and ;R.N. Misra, JJ.
Decided On: Dec 06, 2007
Subject: Commercial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 [C.A. No. 45/1860]. Section 302; [M.C. Jain, R.C. Deepak & K.K. Misra, JJ] Murder Plea as to accused being minor School register and transfer certificate not proved before Court according to law Held, It has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and cir...

Key legal issue: Commercial

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vimla Devi

Advocate Shri. Krishna Kumar Chaurasiya

Respondent

State of U.P. and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Pramod Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and Ors.
Reported In: 2008(1)AWC1025

Excerpt

- indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860]. section 302; [m.c. jain, r.c. deepak & k.k. misra, jj] murder plea as to accused being minor school register and transfer certificate not proved before court according to law held, it has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and circumstances surfacing on record. age determined on the basis of x-ray plates and report prepared by c.m.o., is the correct age of accused. accused was declared to be child on the date of commission of offence of murder. however, considering fact that now accused was around 41 years, he cannot be sent to approved school. accused was directed to pay fine of rs.25,000/- under section 302 i.p.c., amount of fine was directed to be paid as compensation to wife of deceased. mohammad - --(1) an application for renewal of mining lease may be made at least six months before the date of expiry of the mining lease alongwith four copies of the map of lease-hold area showing clearly the area applied for renewal and the provisions of clauses (a) and (d) of sub-rule (1) of rule 6 shall mutatis mutandis apply. coming to plea that in case of renewal there is no requirement of compliance of section 2 of the forest conservation act, the stand is clearly untenable in view of decisions in ambica quarry's case (supra) and rural litigation and entitlement kendera v......(annexure-1 to the writ petition) at the time of granting the lease and her renewal application should also be granted on the basis of that certificate. though there is no written order/objection of the respondent no. 3 on the record but this is a fact that the renewal application of the petitioner has not been decided so far. the learned standing counsel has contended that while granting the permission to renew the lease, a fresh 'no objection certificate' is required and without that the renewal application cannot be accepted. rule 6a runs as under: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 alongwith four copies of the map of lease-hold area showing clearly the area applied for renewal and the provisions 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 making the application for renewal of mining lease after the period specified in sub-rule (1).4. this is admitted fact that when any person moves application for grant or renewal of the lease it is the duty of the district magistrate concerned to get 'no objection certificate' from the forest department. in the case of k.m. chinnappa v. t.n. godavarman thirumalpad 2002 (7) supreme 620, the similar question arose before the hon'ble apex court and the following observations were made:coming to plea that in case of renewal there is no requirement of compliance of section 2 of the forest conservation act, the stand is clearly untenable in view of decisions in ambica quarry's case (supra) and rural litigation and entitlement kendera v. state of u. p. : air 1988 sc2187 , where at page 2201 it was observed that 'whether it is a case of first grant or renewal following exercise of option by the lessee, the compliance of section 2 of the forest conservation act is necessary as a condition precedent'.5. the.....

Full Judgment

V.M. Sahai and R.N. Misra, JJ.

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for renewal of the mining lease.

We have heard Shri Krishna Kumar Chaurasiya, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.

2. It appears from the contents of the petition that the mining lease was granted in favour of the petitioner for five years, i.e., from 27.9.2002 to 26.9.2007. According to Rule 6A of the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') the petitioner has applied for renewal of the lease in Form MM-1 (Ka) on 2.2.2007, i.e., before six months of the expiry of the original lease. The District Magistrate, Mirzapur (respondent No. 3) has not passed any order on her renewal application on the ground that 'No Objection Certificate' has to be obtained from the Forest Department. The petitioner has prayed for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to consider the renewal application of the petitioner without 'No Objection Certificate' of Forest Department and pass suitable orders.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner had filed 'No Objection Certificate' dated 2.2.2002 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) at the time of granting the lease and her renewal application should also be granted on the basis of that certificate. Though there is no written order/objection of the respondent No. 3 on the record but this is a fact that the renewal application of the petitioner has not been decided so far. The learned standing counsel has contended that while granting the permission to renew the lease, a fresh 'No Objection Certificate' is required and without that the renewal application cannot be accepted. Rule 6A runs as under:

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 alongwith four copies of the map of lease-hold area showing clearly the area applied for renewal and the provisions 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 making the application for renewal of mining lease after the period specified in Sub-rule (1).

4. This is admitted fact that when any person moves application for grant or renewal of the lease it is the duty of the District Magistrate concerned to get 'No Objection Certificate' from the Forest Department. In the case of K.M. Chinnappa v. T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad 2002 (7) Supreme 620, the similar question arose before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the following observations were made:

Coming to plea that in case of renewal there is no requirement of compliance of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, the stand is clearly untenable in view of decisions in Ambica Quarry's case (supra) and Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendera v. State of U. P. : AIR 1988 SC2187 , where at page 2201 it was observed that 'whether it is a case of first grant or renewal following exercise of option by the lessee, the compliance of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act is necessary as a condition precedent'.

5. The logic behind the problem as discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is that by destroying nature, environment, man is committing matricide, having in a way killed Mother Earth. Technological excellence, growth of Industries, economical gains have led to depletion of natural resources irreversibly. Indifference to the grave consequences, lack of concern and foresight have contributed in large measures to the alarming position.

6. In view of the said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court it is necessary for the renewal of the mining lease to get 'No Objection Certificate' from the Forest Department. The certificate issued before five years may not be sufficient because in the meantime the situation might have changed.

7. The copy of the order of this Bench Annexure-3 to the writ petition passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52855 of 2007, Pramod Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and Ors. has been filed by the petitioner. While passing that order the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above was not placed before us, therefore, the petitioner cannot take benefit of that order. However, in that order also the District Magistrate was not forbidden to take a fresh 'No Objection Certificate' from the Forest Department, if required.

8. This writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent No. 3 to decide the application of the petitioner for renewal of the lease after obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' from Divisional Forest Officer, Mirzapur. The entire exercise should be completed by District Magistrate within a period of two months from the date when the certified copy of this order is filed in his office. The Divisional Forest Officer shall pass necessary order within ten days from the receipt of letter of District Magistrate for issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' and thereafter the District Magistrate will decide the renewal application according to law.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2007 Same Parties Vimla Devi vs State of U.P. and ors. Same Subject Commercial Same Judge V.M. Sahai and ;R.N. Misra, JJ.

Commercial