Manjeet Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand & Others

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the certiorari quashing the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the respondent no.3 and the notice of auction issued by the respondent no.4 fixing 17.1.2017 for auction of the property of the petitioner.

The case of the petitioner is that he is a permanent resident of Village Ukrouli, Tehsil Sitarganj, Udham Singh Nagar and is having a piece of land in which he intended to construct a house, for which he got a map sanctioned. After sanction of the map, the petitioner started constructing the house and for which the petitioner required sand, bolders and other materials. The petitioner contacted a supplier for supply the aforesaid material, who after obtaining the due royalty etc., supplied 400 cubic metre R.B.M. in the plot of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he received a notice dated 05.10.2015 wherein an allegation of illegal storage of mineral was leveled against him and he was asked to submit his written statement. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner

submitted his written statement. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 passed the impugned order, imposing a penalty of `6.00 Lakhs upon the petitioner for alleged illegal storage of 400 cubic metres minerals.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed an appeal in the court of Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital (respondent no.2) against the impugned order dated 18.03.2016 but since the respondent no.2 is not holding Court from a long time as he has an additional charge of Secretary, State Government, therefore, the petitioner is not able pursue his stay application filed in the appeal and as a consequence the respondent no.4 has issued a notice of auction whereby the property of the petitioner is to be auctioned on 17.01.2017. Learned counsel confines his prayer to the extent that a direction be issued to the respondent no.2 to decide the stay application moved by the petitioner in the appeal, before 17.01.2017. He further submits that in case stay application is not decided before that day, the property will be auctioned which cannot be compensated in any manner. Learned Standing Counsel for the State fairly submits that in case a direction is issued to the respondent no.2 to hold the court before 17.01.2017 and to decide the stay application moved by the petitioner, the same will be done by the respondent no.2.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent no.2-Commissioner, Kumaon Division to hold court, any day before

17.01.2017, and to take decision on the stay application moved by the petitioner in the appeal, on or before 16.01.2017. The order passed by the respondent no.2 on the stay application will be supplied to the parties on the same day.