Allahabad High Court
SHRI YOGENDRA PREMANIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the delay and the petitioner's acceptance of the lease cancellation preclude interference.
Summary
The petitioner, Yogendra Premani, challenged two orders of the District Magistrate: an order dated 8 June 2023 cancelling a lease under the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021, and a later order dated 7 March 2025 directing adjustment and refund of the balance. The petitioner argued that the lease should not have been cancelled before the statutory 30‑day period for payment of demand had expired. The court noted that the petitioner had accepted the cancellation and raised the challenge only after the second order, resulting in a gross delay. Relying on the principle that extraordinary writ jurisdiction should not be exercised in such circumstances, the court dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner was directed to pursue any statutory remedy available under the Rules.
Issues considered
- Whether the District Magistrate could cancel the lease without allowing the 30‑day period for payment of demand under the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021.
- Whether the writ petition, filed after a considerable delay and after the petitioner’s acceptance of the cancellation, is maintainable.
Subjects
- lease cancellation
- minor minerals
- Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021
- writ jurisdiction
- delay
- statutory remedy
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 28839 of 2026
Shri Yogendra Premani
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Harshit Kumar Srivastava,
Himanshu Srivastava, Madan
Lal Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.
1. Mr. Himanshu Srivastava, learned advocate appears for
petitioner and submits, challenge is to orders dated 8th June, 2023
and 7th March, 2025 passed by respondent no. 2 (the District
Magistrate). Dr Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned advocate, Chief
Standing Counsel appears for State and submits, there be no
interference as petitioner has come on gross delay. By order dated
8th June, 2023 the lease was cancelled. By order dated 7th
March, 2025 there was direction for adjustment and refund of the
balance.
2. In reply Mr. Srivastava submits, in rule 59 of Uttar Pradesh
Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 there is provision for
allowing 30 days' time for payment of the demand. Without
waiting for expiry of the period, his client's lease was cancelled.
There be interference.
3. Token on the writ petition was obtained on 16th July, 2026.
We see that first challenge in it is against order dated 8th June,
2023 cancelling the lease. Petitioner is seen to have accepted the
cancellation. A belated challenge has been raised on back of the
second order directing adjustment and refund. We will not be
drawn, in this manner, to exercise our extraordinary writ
jurisdiction.
WRIC No. 28839 of 2026
2
4. The writ petition is dismissed. Mr. Srivastava's submission
that his client be at liberty to seek statutory remedy, is recorded.
September 11, 2026/sailesh
(Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Satya Veer Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SAILESH PRAJAPATI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…