2002 (12) TMI 629

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... out on 'first come first serve' basis. As provided by the G.O. based on the opinion of Directorate of Geology and Mining, the term of such lease shall normally be between three to five years. The appellant applied for one such sand mining lease in accordance with the policy decision contained in the G.O. The Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar granted the said lease to the appellant. The lease was executed for a period of one year w.e.f. 3rd June, 1998. Before the expiry of the term of the lease, the appellant sought for a renewal for another period of two years. The Collector granted such extension vide order dated 20.12.2000; the principal consideration for granting such renewal being that the lease, as originally executed, should ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der shows that in the opinion of the High Court the order of the Collector granting two years extension of mining rights to the appellant was justified and the State Government was not justified in interfering and setting aside the order of the Collector. The High Court agreed that the initial lease should have been for a period of three years in which case there would have been no occasion for litigation. However still, the High Court denied the relief to the appellant on the ground that auction would sub-serve public interest by fetching higher royalty to the State Government and further because the period of three years calculated from the date of the original grant had in any case come to an end and therefore no relief could be allowed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....riod by which the mining operation by the appellant fell short of three years time. Haying heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel for the State and the private respondent, we are satisfied that the appeal deserves to be allowed. The ordinary rule of litigation is that the rights of the panics stand crystallized on the date of commencement of litigation and right to relief should be decided by reference to the date on which the petitioner entered the portals of the Court. A petitioner, though entitled to relief in law, may yet be denied relief in equity because of subsequent or intervening events, i.e., the events between the commencement of litigation and the date of decision. The relief to which the peti....