Panwar Stone Crusher vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

B.S. Verma, J.—By means of this petition the Petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20-12-2010 passed by Respondent No. 2, annexure No. 14 to the writ petition, whereby the appeal preferred before Respondent No. 2, against the order passed by Collector Rudraprayag dated 23.3.2010 and amended order dated 30-3-2010 as well as recovery citation dated 14.7.2010, and order dated 25.3.2010, whereby the Collector passed the order for closer of the Crusher Unit, were challenged.

The learned Brief Holder appearing on hehalf of the Respondents has raised preliminary objection that so far as the order for imposing penalty and royalty are concerned, the same is revisable under Rule 78 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rule 1963.

Learned cousnel for the Petitioner has contended that the order of the Collector to close the Crusher Unit is without jurisdiction, therefore, writ could be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

I haver perused the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner. The learned Commissioner did not take the impugned order dated 25.3.2010 for consideration. In first paragraph of the impugned order the learned Commissioner himself referred that this appeal has been preferred against the order dated 23.3.2010 and amended order dated 30-3-2010 as well as recovery citation dated 14-7-2010. Therefore, if the Petitioner so thinks that the order is without jurisdiction, he may file fresh writ petition to asail the order dated 25.3.2010, passed by the Collector, whereby order for closer of Crusher Unit was passed.

So far as the other impugned orders 23.3.2010 and amended order dated 30-3-2010 as well as recovery citation dated 14.7.2010, are concerned the statutory alternative remedy is available to the Petitioner to file revision before the State Government.

Therefore, on the ground of alternative remedy the writ petition is dismissed.

However, it is proved that if the revision is preferred by the Petitioner before the State Government, the same shall decided finally by the State Government after hearing the revisionist, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of one month from the date of presentation of the revision.