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
7 paragraphs · 194 wordsManoj Kumar Gupta CJ
The present writ petition is directed against a notice dated 24.02.2025 issued by In-charge Mining Officer requiring the petitioner to forthwith deposit the outstanding amounts of penalties and royalties to the tune of ₹6,32,96,838/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that against the impugned order the petitioner has remedy of filing appeal under the provisions of the Uttarakhand Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2023 and amendments made thereto from time to time.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the impugned notice was issued against the petitioner when he filed PIL No.51 of 2025 highlighting the illegalities committed by the respondents in declaring one Deepak Pokhariyal as successful bidder though his bid was lower than that of one Ashish Gairola.
As the petitioner has statutory remedy available to him, therefore, we are not inclined to accept the submission or examine the validity of the impugned notice in the present petition bypassing the remedy of appeal.
The petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy if so advised.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.