Sanjay Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

B.S. Verma, J.—Heard Ms. Pushpila Bisht, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Brief Holder on behalf of the Respondent/State.

By means of this petition the Petitioner has sought the following relief-

(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 12.10.2010 passed by the respodnent No. 2, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to settle the area in question after adhering to the provisions of Rule 72 of the Uttarakhand Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2001.

(iii) any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to the present writ petition, are that the Petitioner is engaged primarily in the business of supply of building material and interested in having the mining lease of minor mineral in area situated at Uttarakhand. The Collector Haridwar/ Respondent No. 2 has committed a manifest error of law by applying the directive of appellate court judgment passed by Commissioner in the case of Musaddi Lal v. District Magistrate Haridwar. That case has no relevance with the case of Respondent No. 3, Ranjandeep Singh. The Respondent No. 3 has also filed a writ petition and that writ petition was withdrawn on the assurance that cancellation of work order would be recalled. By impugned order he was allowed to continue mining operation on the basis of lease granted to him, while in view of the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 1498(M/S) of 2009, the provision of Rule 72 of Uttarakhand Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2001 has to be adhered to by the authorities concerned. In the subsequent G.O. issued by the Government on 25-06-2010, direction was issued to the Collectors that for future lease the provision of Rule 72 of the Rules should be adhered to. In the case of Musaddi Lal also the direction was to the Collectors to proceed further on the basis of the Government Order dated 25-06-2010.

The Petitioner has alternative remedy to assail the order impugned before the Commissioner/State as per provisions of Rules 77 and 78 of Uttarakhand Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules 2001. The Petitioner may raise all the grounds taken in the writ petition before the Commissioner.

If the appeal is preferred by the Petitioner, the same shall be decided expeditiously as far as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid direction the writ petition is disposed of finally.