HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 16047 of 2021 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(a). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature Certiorari quashing impugned order dated 13.04.2021 (Annexure-1) passed by the Secretary, Bhutatva Evam Khani Karm, U.P. Shasan, Lucknow, respondent No. 1 in Revision No. 77 (R)/SM/2020, Ziladhikari, Chitrakoot versus M/s Shiv and Company and another, so far relates to security amount to be adjusted with the Royalty amount and further to direct to re- calculate the amount and pass afresh order to recover the remaining from the petitioner. (b). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to not recover the royalty amount of IInd and IIIrd instalment of Ist. year lease amount." 3. The brief facts of the case are that an advertisement dated 08.12.2017 was issued inviting applications for E-Tender/E-Auction for mining lease over Gata No. 42/3, 97, 80Kha, 320 and 2267 area 12.005 Hectare, in village Garhi Ghat, Tehsil Karvi, District Chitrakoot. Thereafter a letter of intent dated 15.2.2018 was issued in favour of the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot granting mining lease being the highest bidder in respect of mining area situated as Gata No. 42/3, 97, 80Kha, 320 and 2267 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Birendra Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Shiv And Company .....Petitioner(s) State Of U P And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) area 12.005 Hectare, in village Garhi Ghat, Tehsil Karvi, District Chitrakoot. Subsequently, mining lease dated 10.5.2018 was executed and the petitioner started mining operation. 4. After completion of one month of mining operations by the petitioner, a representation dated 20.06.2018 was submitted to the District Magistrate, inter alia, stating that the quantity of mineral has been exhausted, due to which it is not possible to pay the outstanding dues. It was requested that an inquiry be conducted to assess the actual quantity of minerals available at the site. In the meantime, since the petitioner committed default in payment of the second installment amounting to Rs.5,63,87,485/-, a notice dated 11.09.2018 was issued directing to deposit the said amount, failing which for taking appropriate action as per law. 5. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed an Appeal No. 01714/2018 under Rule 77 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 1963'). The Commissioner passed an order dated 25.10.2018 in the appeal directing the District Magistrate to conduct spot inspection by a three member team and submit report prior to 16.11.2018. In compliance of the order dated 25.10.2018 in the appeal, the inspection was conducted on 14.11.2018 and inspection report was submitted. The appeal was finally disposed of vide order dated 6.1.2019 with the direction to the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot to proceed and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 20.6.2018 in light of the inspection report dated 14.11.2018 as per the provisions contained in Rules,1963. 6. The District Magistrate in furtherance of the order dated 6.1.2019 passed order dated 31.1.2019 terminating the lease of the petitioner exercising power under Rule 58 of the Rules, 1963 forfeiting the security money amounting to Rs.5,63,87,485/- in favour of the State Government and for recovery of the second and third installment total amounting to Rs.11,27,74,970/- along with 18% interest as arrears of land revenue and blacklisted the company of the petitioner for two years under Rule 60 of the Rules, 1963. Further the representation of the petitioner dated 20.6.2018 which was pressed by the petitioner as surrender application was also rejected by the District Magistrate while passing the order dated 31.1.2019 on the ground that there is no provision under Chapter IV of the Rules, 1963 WRIC No. 16047 of 2021 2 for surrender of the mining lease. 7. The order dated 31.1.2019 was challenged in appeal under Rule 77 of the Rules, 1963 before the Commissioner, Division, Chitrakoot Dham which was allowed vide order dated 4.12.2019. The Commissioner , Divisional, Chitrakoot Dham while allowing the appeal dated 4.12.2019 set aside the order dated 31.1.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot and also cancelled the lease deed. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot filed Revision No. 77(R)/SM/2020 before the State Government under Rule 78 of the Rules, 1963. The revision filed by the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot was allowed vide order dated 13.4.2021 except to the extent of blacklisting order contained in the order dated 31.1.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot which was challenged in appeal before the Commissioner. The order dated 13.4.2021 passed in Revision No. 77(R)/SM/2020 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 9. The counter affidavit filed by the State-respondents while contesting the claim of the petitioner relied upon condition no. 22(1) of the advertisement dated 8.12.2017 which provides that a prospecting bidder should satisfy himself about the availability of mineral at the spot and other relevant material aspects before participating in the auction and any claim after participation in the bid proceedings will not be entertained. Further the lease deed dated 10.5.2018 also contains specific clause reiterating the condition no. 22(1) of the advertisement dated 8.12.2017 and hence the state authorities has contended that the claim of the petitioner regarding non availability of the mineral is not permissible and since there being no provision of surrender of mining lease deed at the relevant point of time, hence the surrender application of the petitioner for surrendering the mining lease cannot be entertained. 10. During the course of argument the State counsel also pointed out that the provision for surrender of mining lease came into effect in the Rule, 1963 vide notification dated 13.8.2019 vide U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) (47th Amendment) Rules, 2019 subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. Thus, it could not be disputed that there was no provision of surrender of WRIC No. 16047 of 2021 3 mining lease on 20.6.2018 when the alleged representation dated 20.6.2018 was filed by the petitioner before the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot claiming it to be surrender application, whereas a bare perusal of the application did not refer any intention of the surrender of the mining lease, rather it speaks of conducting inquiry and providing some concession. 11. Be that as it may be, this Court finds that while passing the impugned revisional order dated 13.4.2021 the revisional authority failed to record any reason for reaching any conclusion allowing the revision. A bare perusal of the revisional order indicates that after reiterating the stand of the parties, in the second last paragraph, it has been concluded by the revisional authority that since the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot has passed the order dated 31.1.2019 under Rule, 58 of the Rules, 1963 for recovery of amount on the default committed by the petitioner for payment of first, second and third installment of the first year of the mining lease, hence there is no illegality in the order dated 31.1.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot without recording any reason. However, the revisional authority held that blacklisting the mining lease holder for two years is not justified as Rule 60(2) has come into effect since 13.8.2019. 12. Thus the revisional order dated 13.4.2021 by which the appellate order dated 4.12.2019 was set aside is a non speaking order as there is no discussion on the claim of the parties with respect to the issue involved in the revision. The issue whether while deciding the revision, the revisional authority is bound to make a speaking order in reference to Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 was adjudicated by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 29.3.1967 in the case of Bharat Raja Vs. The Union of India (UOI) & Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0002/1967, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Central Government discharges functions which are judicial while exercising its power of revision under Rule 55. Paragraph No. 10 of the judgment is quoted herein below:- "10. It is now well settled that in exercising its powers of revision under r. 55 the Central Government discharges functions which are judicial see Shivji Nathubhai v. The Union Of India & Ors. MANU/SC/0013/1960: [1960]2SCR775 and M. P. Industries v. Union [1966] 2 S.C.R. 466. In the latter case one of us (our present Chief Justice) said (at p. 471): WRIC No. 16047 of 2021 4 The entire scheme of the rules posits a judicial procedure and the Central Government is constituted as a tribunal to dispose of the said revision. Indeed this Court in Shivji Nathabhai v. The Union of India (supra) rules that the Central Government exercising its power of review under r. 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 was acting judicially as a tribunal. The new rule, if at all is clearer in that regard and emphasises the judicial character of proceeding. If it was a tribunal this Court under Art 136 of the Constitution can entertain an appeal against the order of the Central Government made in exercise of its revisional powers under r. 55 of the Rules.". 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. reported in 2010 (9) SCC 51 held in paragraph no. 18 that any order affecting the right of the parties either by quasi-judicial authority or administrative authority must be a speaking order. Paragraph No. 18 of the judgment is quoted herein below:- "This Court always opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the 'inscrutable face of a Sphinx'." 14. In the present case, the revisional authority while passing the revisional order dated 13.4.2021 did not record any finding which is evident from the concluding paragraphs of the revisional order which is quoted herein below:- "प्रितपक्षी के िवद्वान अिधवक्ता द्वारा प्रस्तुत मौिखक व िलिखत तकोर्ं व िनगरानीकतार् (िजलािधकारी, िचत्रकू ट) के प्रितिनिध खान अिधकारी, िचत्रकू ट की उपिस्थित में पत्रावली के साथ प्रस्तुत अिभलेखों का अवलोकन िकया गया। स्पष्ट है िक पट्टाधारक द्वारा प्रथम वषर् की िद्वतीय व तृतीय िकश्त की कु ल धनरािश रु० 11,27,74,970.00 जमा न करने के कारण उ०प्र० उपखिनज (पिरहार) िनयमावली-1963 के िनयम-58 के अनुसार खनन पट्टा शतोर्ं का उल्लघन िकये जाने के दृिष्टगत् िजलािधकारी, िचत्रकू ट द्वारा अपने आदेश िदनांक 31.01.2019 के माध्यम से पट्टेधारक के खनन पट्टे को िनरस्त कर जमा प्रितभूित की धनरािश रू० 5,63,87,485.00 को राज्य सरकार के पक्ष में जब्त करते हुए कु ल देय धनरािश को भू-राजस्व के रूप में 18 प्रितशत वािषक ब्याज सिहत वसूले जाने हेतु वसूली माँग पत्र जारी िकये जाने के आदेश पािरत करते हुए पट्टेदार को दो वषोर्ं के िलए काली सूची में डाला गया। िनयमावली-1963 के िनयम-60 (2) जो िदनांक 13.08.2019 से प्रभावी है, के अनुसार- "If a lease is terminated under sul-rule(1) or rule 58, the lessee may be black listed by the District Officer for such period, not exceeding two years, as he may consider proper." उपरोक्त से स्पष्ट है िक पट्टेदार को िजलािधकारी, िचत्रकू ट के आदेश िदनांक 31. 01.2019 के द्वारा दो वषोर्ं हेतु कालीसूची में डाला जाना न्यायसंगत नहीं है। उपरोक्त आदेश के िवरूद्ध पट्टेदार द्वारा आयुक्त िचत्रकू ट धाम मण्डल, बांदा के समक्ष प्रस्तुत WRIC No. 16047 of 2021 5 अपील में पािरत आदेश िदनांक 04.12.2019 के अनुसार "िजलािधकारी, िचत्रकू ट का प्रश्नगत् आदेश िदनांक 31.01.2019 िनरस्त िकये जाने के साथ संदिभत खनन पट्टा भी िनरस्त िकया जाता है। प्रितभूित की वापसी हेतु िनयमानुसार कायर्वाही की जाए", के संबंध में स्पष्ट करना है िक मा० आयुक्त, िचत्रकू ट धाम मण्डल , बांदा द्वारा पािरत आदेश िदनांक 04.12.2019 िनयमानुसार नहीं है तथा िजलािधकारी, िचत्रकू ट द्वारा पट्टेदार पर आरोिपत बकाया धनरािश की गणना िनयमानुसार की गई है िजसमें िकसी हस्तक्षेप की आवश्यकता नहीं है। अतः उपरोक्त के दृिष्टगत् आयुक्त, िचत्रकू ट धाम मण्डल, बांदा द्वारा पािरत आदेश िदनांक 04.12.2019 को िनरस्त कर िजलािधकारी, िचत्रकू ट को िनदेर्िशत िकया जाता है िक वह अपने आदेश िदनांक 31.01.2019 में से कालीसूची वाले अंश को हटाते हुए तथा पट्टेदार पर बकाया धनरािश को जमा प्रितभूित की धनरािश से समायोिजत करने के उपरान्त अवशेष धनरािश की गणना कर पुनः आदेश पािरत करें। प्रस्तुत िनगरानी िनस्तािरत की जाती है।" 15. In view of the above, the impugned order of revisional authority is set aside and the matter remitted to the revisional authority to take fresh decision on Revision No. 77(R)/SM/2020 within a period of two months by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. September 15, 2025 Gaurav WRIC No. 16047 of 2021 6 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad