According to the original petitioner, when he commenced mining operations, the district administration of Chhatarpur, State of Madhya Pradesh (in short, the State of M.P.) raised an objection to the mining operations conducted by the original petitioner on the ground that 300 meters of the demised mining area fell within the territorial limits of the State of M.P. (Para 5)
It is the case of the original petitioner that objection of the district administration of Chhatarpur was duly reported to the officers of the State of U.P. but they failed to resolve the boundary dispute. Rather, the State of U.P raised a demand of Rs.6,58,25,000/- as next instalment payable towards royalty. Aggrieved therewith, the original petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing Writ C No.18794 of 2019 seeking a direction upon the State of U.P. as well as the State of M.P. – (a) to resolve the boundary dispute in the demised area and (b) to permit the original petitioner to continue mining operations in the demised area. In the alternative it was prayed that if the boundary dispute is not resolved, and the original petitioner is not permitted to carry out mining operations, further realization of royalty be suspended. (Para 6)
High Court disposed of Writ C No. 18794 of 2019 with a direction to the State of U.P. to resolve the dispute expeditiously in terms of the letter dated 15.07.2019. It was also directed that till the dispute is resolved, no coercive action be taken against the original petitioner to recover the royalty. (Para 8)
Writ C No.37749 of 2019 was filed by the original petitioner before the High Court, claiming, inter alia, that since the State of U.P. could not resolve the boundary dispute, the State of U.P. and its officers be directed to refund the amount already deposited by the appellant including expenses amounting to Rs.26,65,66,666/- with 9% interest. (Para 9)
High Court allowed Writ C No.37749 of 2019 on the ground that since the State had failed to deliver possession of the demised mining area, the amount of money paid for gaining mining rights was liable to be refunded. (Para 10)
Having found that the High Court has not properly addressed all the issues raised before it, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the High Court by restoring the writ petition to its original number so that it is decided afresh in accordance with law. (Para 21)
Consequently, these appeals are allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.09.2022 and 12.05.2023 are set aside. Writ C No.37749 of 2019 is restored to the file for fresh adjudication. It is made clear that if parties have not already exchanged their affidavits in the said writ petition, they may do so within six weeks from today. We request the High Court to decide the matter in the light of our observations above, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is furnished before it. (Para 22)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 209 SC
[2023 INSC 763]
State Of U.P & Others Vs. Vinay Kumar Singh
Civil Appeal Nos.5171-5172 of 2023 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.17891-17892 of 2023)-Decided on 23-8-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023-STPLWeb-209-SC.pdf
