AMOD KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

   HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 WRIT - C No. - 28210 of 2026

Amod Kumar Singh
                                                  .....Petitioner(s)
                             Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                  .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Chhaya Gupta, Sujeet Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : C.S.C.

Court No. - 21
             HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.

             HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.

                     (Per Arindam Sinha, J.)


1. Petitioner has challenged order dated 17th February, 2026
passed by respondent no. 5 (the Additional District Magistrate)
demanding enhanced rate of royalty. Ms. Chhaya Gupta, learned
advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, the
authority acted in excess of the powers. Her client obtained the
mining lease for period of 10 years by successfully bidding at Rs.
112/- per cubic meter against reserved price of Rs. 110/- per
cubic meter, on mining area duly declared under rule 23(1) in
chapter IV of Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules,
2021. Impugned order, therefore, be interfered with inasmuch as
it goes against terms of the contract made upon her client having
been successful bidder in the e-auction. Provision for amount
payable on royalty upon grant of lease is as per rule 28(ii).
Impugned order purporting to be in pursuance of notification
dated 4th February, 2026, amending the rules, cannot be relied
upon to demand the increase in rate of royalty. There be
interference to quash and set aside impugned order.

2. Dr. Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned advocate, Chief Standing
Counsel appears for State. He submits, impugned order was duly
made pursuant to amendment in the rules by said notification
dated 4th February, 2026. Serial no. 4(v)(b) of the table given in
                                                       WRIC No. 28210 of 2026
                              2


the notification provides for increase of the rate of royalty from
Rs., 110/- per cubic meter to Rs. 140/- per cubic meter. On earlier
prevailing prescribed rate of royalty at Rs. 110/- per cubic meter,
petitioner had bid Rs. 112/- per cubic meter to obtain the lease.
He refers to rule 28(iii) for same allowing for the increase after
commencement of the lease.

3. He relies on judgement dated 13th July, 2026 of the Supreme
Court in, inter-alia, Civil Appeal no. 8830 of 2026 (The State of
Haryana and Ors. vs. M/S Faridabad Gurgaon Minerals and
Anr.), paragraphs 18 and 21. He submits, paragraph 18 contains
issues framed for consideration of the Court, of which issue no.
(I) stands answered in paragraph 21.

4. Contention of petitioner regarding sanctity of e-auction and
pursuant thereto the mining lease granted on rate of royalty,
relying on rule 23(3), cannot be sustained against contention of
State to enforce the increase in royalty, relying on rule 28(2)(iii).
Rule 23(3) is reproduced below.

     "23. Declaration of area for e-tender/e-auction/e-tender-
     cum-e-auction lease-

     .....................

     (3) On the declaration of the area of the area under sub-rule
     (1) the provisions of Chapters II, III, VI and IX except Rules
     10, 17 and 95 shall not apply to the area or areas in respect
     of which the declaration has been issued. Such area or areas
     may be leased out according to the procedure described in
     this chapter.

     ....................."

It will appear from above quoted sub-rule that on declaration of
the area under sub-rule (1), provisions in several chapters have
been excluded from application but chapter IV, under which the
rule falls, has not been itself excluded. In chapter IV falls rule 28,
in which State is relying on sub-rule 2(iii). Said rule 28(2)(iii) is
reproduced below.

     "28. Grant of Lease-
                                                          WRIC No. 28210 of 2026
                                     3

     .....................

     (2)(iii) for the subsequent years the amount payable will be
     increased at the rate of ten percent on the preceding year's
     payable amount, except in case of in-situ rocks;

     Provided that for in-situ rocks minerals the amount payable
     for the first ten years shall be the bid rate or the royalty rate
     specified in the rules from time to time, whichever is higher
     ;

     Provided further that amount payable will be increased by
     twenty-five percent in every 10 years but in subsequent years
     the amount payable will not be less than the royalty rate
     specified in the rules:"

     ......................."

                                                (emphasis supplied)

Therefore, State is empowered by the chapter in the rules, on
which petitioner relies, to require petitioner to pay the enhanced
rate of royalty.

5. In view of aforesaid, M/S Faridabad Gurgaon Minerals
(supra) does not come to aid of State's contention. Relied upon
issue framed in paragraph 18 is reproduced below.

     "18. Having heard learned senior counsel appearing for the
     parties, the following issues arises for our consideration;

     I. Whether, in the absence of any stipulation in the lease deed
     subjecting the lease to statutory rules )providing for
     fluctuating or revised rates of royalty and dead rent), the
     State was precluded from enhancing the rate of royalty after
     execution of such deed?

     ............................"

We reproduce below paragraphs 21 and 22 carrying answer to the
issue, in law. It is of instruction regarding source of power,
contractual and sovereign.

     "21. Does a statutory contract entered into by and between
     the Government of a State (lessor) and a private party
                                                                                                 WRIC No. 28210 of 2026
                                                                     4

                                            (lessee), containing various terms and conditions for
                                            regulation of mining in the leasehold area, forecloses the
                                            Government's right to exercise a statutory power which
                                            though otherwise available is not expressly mentioned in the
                                            contract? The answer to this question, ordinarily, would be
                                            in the negative. A contract cannot foreclose the Government
                                            from exercising a statutory power is the settled law.
                                            However, there is an exception, i.e., if the statute itself allows
                                            contracting out of that power and giving up that statutory
                                            power by the Government is a part of the agreed terms of the
                                            contract.

                                            22. The reason seems to be this. When Government enters
                                            into a contract, it can wear two hats. First, is the hat of a
                                            sovereign. Source of the power is a statute and the purpose of
                                            exercise of power would be to advance public good. Second,
                                            is the commercial/private hat where source of the power is
                                            derived only from the contract. No statute is involved and
                                            there is absence of any public regulatory element."

                                        6. Challenge of petitioner thus fails. The writ petition is
                                        dismissed.

                                        September 28, 2026
                                        sailesh
                                                                                           (Arindam Sinha,J.)


                                                                                         (Satya Veer Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SAILESH PRAJAPATI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad