CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Achchey Lal vs State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 11 April 2011 · Citation: (2011) 1 EFLT 425

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satya Poot Mehrotra, J · S.C. Agarwal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963 — Rule 77
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.M.W.P. No. 10610 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 360 words
1.

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 5th February, 2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Mau, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No. 18 to the writ petition. By the said order, the District Magistrate, Mau has required the Petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 14,50,140- towards additional royalty in respect of the mining lease granted to the Petitioner with effect from 27th July, 2006 to 26th July, 2009.

2.

Counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged in this case.

3.

We have heard Sri Manish Chandra Tiwari, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri A.K. Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, and have perused the record.

4.

Sri A.K. Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents has raised preliminary objection that the Petitioner has got alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order dated 5.2.2011 before the Divisional Commissioner under Rule 77 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (in short ''1963 Rules'').

5.

Having considered the preliminary objection raised by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents, we are inclined to accept the same.

6.

Rule 77 of the 1963 Rules provides that an appeal against the order passed by the District Officer (i.e., District Magistrate) may be filed before the Divisional Commissioner within the period mentioned in the said Rule.

7.

Thus, Rule 77 of the 1963 Rules provides an alternative remedy to the Petitioner.

8.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the nature of controversy involved in the case, we are of the view that the Petitioner be relegated to the alternative remedy available to him under Rule 77 of the 1963 Rules.

9.

The writ petition filed by the Petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the Petitioner, and the same is dismissed on the said ground.

10.

In case, the appeal is filed by the Petitioner within three weeks from today alongwith the certified copy of this order, the same will be entertained without raising any objection regarding limitation.

11.

Writ Petition Dismissed.