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
6 paragraphs · 190 wordsManoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.01.2025, passed by District Mining Officer, Haridwar. By the said order, petitioner’s prayer for extension of time for lifting soil from the agricultural field of one Suleman, was turned down.
Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn attention of this Court to Rule 77 of the Uttarakhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2023 to contend that the said provision provides for remedy of Appeal. Thus, he contends that since the order impugned in the Writ Petition is appealable, therefore, Writ Petition may not be entertained.
Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute this contention made by the State Counsel.
We, therefore, dispose of the Writ Petition by permitting the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority. If petitioner files an Appeal within ten days from today, the same shall be heard and decided by the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, as per law.
It shall be open to the petitioner to claim the benefit of provision contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, before the Appellate Authority.