Rule 41(h) Of UP Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules | Person Is Entitled To Seek Refund If Mining Is Restrained Due To Litigation: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court held that an individual is entitled to seek a refund for a period when the work was retrained due to litigation under Rule 41(h) Of UP Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2023 (Rules, 2021).
The Bench Comprising Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Manoj Bajaj observed, “Be it as it may, we are further of the view that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the provision contained in Rule 41(h) of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 and he can always ask for a refund”.
Advocates Swati Singh and Birendra Singh appeared on behalf of the Petitioner and Additional Chief Standing Counsel Sandeep Singh appeared for the Respondents.
The Petitioner had applied for a license/permit when an advertisement was issued inviting E-tenders under Rule 23(2)(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concessions) Rules, 1863 (Rules). The Petitioner’s tender was accepted and he was granted the permit for six months for a certain payment.
Meanwhile, an Individual approached the National Green Tribunal (NGT) alleging that the petitioner lacked an environmental clearance certificate. The NGT disposed of the Application while directing the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) to revisit environmental clearance. Subsequently, environmental clearance was issued to the Petition. The District Magistrate noted that since the Petitioner had the permit dated May 9, 2022, but had worked only for nine days, he ought to be permitted to work for the remaining five months and twenty-one days but such order was withdrawn. Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the Court by way of a Writ Petition challenging the Withdrawl Order.
The Court noted that the Ptitioner’s case comes under the ambit of Rule 41(h) of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 (Rules, 2021) and can seek a refund for the period he was unable to work. Additionally, the Court directed the Respondent to refund the amount of royalty for the period he was unable to work with the rate of interest of 6% per annum. However, the Court did not interfere with the Withdrawl Order which refrained the Petitioner from mining further.
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: M/S Manali Vintrade Private Limited v State Of U.P. And 3 Others (2023:AHC:194624-DB)
