Nafish Ahamad vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

S.K. Mishra, J

By filing this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

I. Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of certiorarified mandamus directing the respondents to declare the cut-off date mentioned in the impugned government order for the purpose of allowing benefit of the mining activities only to those whose work were stopped due to not fault of them and remaining period as per the lease is remaining is arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational and discriminatory, and to quash the same along with its effect and operation, keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of petitioner or to mould the relief appropriately by safeguarding the interest of the petitioner.

II. Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to carry out the mining activities in term of the lease and for for the remaining period which was affected due to no fault of the petitioner keeping in vie the facts highlighted in the body of petitioner or to mould the relief appropriately by safeguarding the interest of the petitioner.

III. Award suitable damages and compensation for the negligent and malicious act of the Respondents as they utterly failed to discharge their legal and constitutional duties to fulfill their promise under law.

IV. Issue any other writ rule or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

V. Award cost of petition.

The petitioner in this case was granted a mining lease. It is the case of the petitioner that he could not operate and carry out the mining activity in terms of the lease for reasons beyond his control, and not because of any fault of his. Therefore, he prayed for an extension of the same. In this connection, he has also made a representation to the learned District Magistrate, Dehradun, which is at Annexure No. 7 of the Writ Petition, wherein he prayed that his case may be considered as per the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.; Appeal (Civil) No. 8681 of 2002 dated 18.12.2002. However, as yet, no decision has been taken on his representation.

In the meantime, the Director, Mining, State of Uttarakhand, has also requested the District Magistrate, Dehradun, vide Annexure No. 8 dated 28.01.2022, to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner. However, the learned District Magistrate, Dehradun has not taken any decision thereon.

In that view of the matter, we dispose of the Writ Petition giving a liberty to the petitioner to file a properly articulated fresh representation ventilating all his grievances before the respondent no. 2, i.e. the District Magistrate, District Dehradun, within ten days from today by annexing a certified copy of this order as well as a copy of the Writ Petition.

On such an event, the respondent no. 2, i.e. the District Magistrate, District Dehradun, shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and production of documents to the petitioner as well as any other party who may be having interest in the matter, take a decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days from the date of the filing of the representation, along with a certified copy of this order as well as a copy of the Writ Petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that he will produce a certified copy of this order, along with a copy of the Writ Petition, before the respondent no. 2 within a period of ten days.

With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

In sequel thereto, all pending applications also stand disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be issued to the parties, as per Rules.