Ravinder Singh Rawat vs State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

Appellant is the writ petitioner. On 30.09.2016, the State Government/respondent no.1 issued a Government order, known as ""Uttarakhand

River Training Policy"" for collecting River Bed Material (hereinafter referred to as the RBM) to save the river bed and locality from the R.B.M.,

which was dumped due to natural calamity. Clause 8 of the said Policy proves that license for a short period on the applications for removal of

RBM from the river bed would be granted by the concerned District Magistrate and the maximum period of the license for removal of RBM would

be six months. According to the writ petitioner, he was granted permission to remove R.B.M. from River Alaknanda in District Pauri Garhwal, for

a period of six months, vide order dated 31.12.2016. However, the appellant could only work for three months and twelve days and could only

remove 6437 tons of RBM. He, thus, moved a representation before the respondent no.3, which was rejected vide order dated 13.10.2017,

whereafter the appellant approached this Court by filing writ petition before the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge, vide order dated

17.11.2017, has dismissed the writ petition.

It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that due to natural calamity, the appellant could only work for about 3 months. According

to her, such situation occurred due to natural calamity which was not in the hands of the appellant; it was beyond his control. It is also the

contention that since the appellant has already paid royalty for the entire quantity of RBM before grant of permission, therefore, he may be

permitted to undertake mining activity for remaining 78 days. Learned counsel also submits that in the matter of similar situated persons, the

Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ petition no.2303 of 2013 (M/S), relying upon Hon?ble Apex Court?s judgment, had granted further time

for the mining activities. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and submits

that there is no illegality in the order.

We have heard Ms. Shivangi Gangwar, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for

the State.

We find that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition at the threshold, without calling the counter affidavit. We see no justification

in the same. Thus, we are of the view that the matter should be reconsidered by the respondents.

In such view of the matter, we dispose of the appeal giving liberty to the appellant/writ petitioner to move a representation for ventilation of his

grievance before respondent no.1 along with certified copy of this judgment. If such representation is moved, respondent no.1-Secretary Industrial

Development shall take a decision on the same within a period of ten days from the date of presentation of representation before him.

We make it clear that the order dated 31.12.2016 passed by respondent no.3 as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge will not

come in the way of taking decision.

Let certified copy of this judgment be issued to the parties today itself.