WRIC/17371/2026 of ANSHIKA SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 9 OTHERS on 29 September 2026

1. Petitioner seeks quashing of notification dated 5th November, 2025 issued by the State Government on contention that substantial power of policy making under rule 23(1) in Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 cannot be sub-delegated under rule 73. This has been done by the notification under challenge. Therefore, it is to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Devbrat Mukherjee, learned advocate appears for petitioner.

2. Mr. Kartikeya Saran, learned advocate, Additional Advocate General appears for State. He draws attention to section 26(2) and 28(3) in Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. He submits, the State Government can delegate. There is requirement of the order to be placed before the House. On earlier occasion (24th September, 2026), he had handed over a set of documents with copies to Mr. Mukherjee, to demonstrate that the Governor had passed the order of delegation, duly notified and placed before the Houses. Thus, petitioner's challenge does not bear substance. The writ petition be dismissed. Mr. Madan Lal Srivastava, learned advocate appears for private respondents. He adopts submissions made by Mr. Saran.

3. Mr. Mukherjee in reply submits, by section 15 in the Act there is power conferred upon the State Government to make the rules. It follows, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devbrat Mukherjee, Siddharth Mukherjee Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Harsh Kumar Mishra, Harshit Kumar Srivastava, Himanshu Srivastava, Madan Lal Srivastava Anshika Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 9 Others .....Respondent(s)

promulgation of the rules was itself delegated legislation. There cannot be further delegation by impugned notification. Hence, impugned notification is sub-delegation, not permissible under the Act. More so because declaration of mining area for auction is a policy decision. It cannot be delegated. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Goa Foundation v. Union of India reported in (2014) 6 SCC 590, paragraph

81. Relied upon part of the paragraph is reproduced below. "81. We are of the considered opinion that it is for the State Government to decide as a matter of policy in what manner the leases of these mineral resources would be granted, but this decision has to be taken in accordance with the provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder and in consonance with the constitutional provisions and the decision taken by the State of Goa to grant a mining lease in a particular manner or to a particular party can be examined by way of judicial review by the Court......"

4. At the outset, our view is that point of contention for which petitioner relies on Goa Foundation (supra) is not what was said by paragraph 81 therein. The Supreme Court said that it is for the State Government to decide as a matter of policy in what manner minor minerals resources would be granted, that the decision has to be taken in accordance with the Act and applicable Rules and it is open to judicial review. We may add that we are not called upon to decide whether by impugned notification delegating the power to declare the area, is delegation of a policy making decision. This is because, the rules giving the procedure are pursuant to policy decision taken by the Government.

5. Rule 23(1) is reproduced below. "23. Declaration of area for e-tender/e-auction/e-tender-cum-e-auction lease-

(1) The State Government may by general or special order declare the area or areas with geo-coordinates which may be leased out by e- tender/e-auction/e-tender-cum-e-auction." Mr. Mukherjee's further submission has been that by impugned notification, in effect the power under rule 23(4) was delegated. Rule

23(4) is reproduced below.

23. (4) The District Officer shall get the area or areas declared under sub-rule (1), evaluated for quality and quantity of mineral for fixing minimum bid or offer by the Director, Geology and Mining, Uttar Pradesh or by an officer authorised by him before the date fixed for e- tender/e-auction/e-tender-cum-e-auction." Also reproduced below are sections 26 and 28(3). "Delegation of powers.

26. (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that any power exercisable by it under this Act may, in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the notification be exercisable also by - (a) Such officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government; or (b) Such State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to a State Government, as may be specified in the notification.

(2) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that any power exercisable by it under this Act may, in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the notification, be exercisable also by such officer or authority subordinate to the State Government as may be specified in the notification.

(3) Any rules made by the Central government under this Act may confer powers and impose duties or authorise the conferring of powers and imposition of duties upon any State Government or any officer or authority subordinate thereto. ............

28. (3) Every rule and every notification made by the State Government under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of the State Legislature where it consists of two Houses, or where such Legislature consists one House, before that House."

6. We are also clear in our mind that by rule 23(1) there is provision of the State Government having power to make general or special order declaring the area or areas with geo-coordinates, which may be leased out by, inter alia, e-tender. Rule 23(4) empowers the District Officer to do something more in respect of the area declared. As such, rule 23(4) is power granted to the District Officer. By impugned notification, the State Government has delegated the power to make general or special order to the District Officer with the condition of doing so, within the district over which the officer exercises jurisdiction. Thus, a power of the State Government provided by rule 23(1) has been delegated on procedure provided by rule 73. Substantial provisions in sections 26 and 28(3) have been complied with on aforesaid demonstration. In the circumstances, petitioner has not been able to make out case on merit.

6. The writ petition is dismissed. The interim order stands vacated. September 30, 2026 Mohini

(Arindam Sinha,J.)

(Prashant Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHINI RAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad