Smt. Pushpa vs State of Uttarakhand & Others

K.M. JOSEPH, C.J. (Oral)

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

Appellant is the writ petitioner. This Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.03.2018 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition

(M/S) No. 757 of 2018. The reliefs sought in the said Writ Petition are as follows:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Notification No. 1207/VII-1/24-Kha/2017 dated 07.08.2015, which was

further followed by another notification dated 26.02.2016 and 19.05.2016 (annexure nos. 1, 2 & 3), whereby the rates of royalty have been revised.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned show cause demand order dated 09.11.2017 & 07.12.2017

whereby the permission of mining operation granted vide order dated 12.03.2015 has been kept in abeyance.

(v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to put hindrance under the garb of demand notice in

carrying out the mining operations by the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of lease deed issued in his favour.â€​

Apparently, appellant/writ petitioner was favoured with the mining lease on 04.02.2015. As is evident from the reliefs prayed for in the Writ

Petition, he complains about not being permitted to carry out mining despite lease having being granted and also there is exception taken to certain

proceedings, by which Royalty is demanded, though according to appellant he was not liable to pay as he had not undertaken any mining operation.

The impugned judgment in Appeal dated 22.03.2018 reveals that the learned Single Judge held that the matter is covered by the orders of the Court

dated 21.03.2018 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3077 of 2017 and connected matters. The impugned judgment further reveals that the learned

counsel representing the State fairly admitted that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Court dated 21.03.2018 and it may also be

disposed on the same terms. So the Writ Petition stood disposed of in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3077/2017.

We have heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. Prabha Naithani, learned Brief Holder on behalf

of the State/respondents.

Today, we have disposed of Special Appeal No. 272/2018. Be it noted that Special Appeal No. 272/2018 was directed against the judgment in Writ

Petition (M/S) No. 216/2018. Writ Petition (M/S) No. 216/2018 has prayers, which are somewhat similar to the reliefs sought in this Writ Petition.

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 216/2018 came to be decided along with Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3077/2017. We have, in our judgment in Special Appeal No.

272 of 2018, noted the reliefs sought in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3077/2017, which was entirely different than what is sought in the Writ Petition (M/S)

No. 216/2018.

It would appear that the learned Single Judge had heard Writ Petition (M/S) No. 216 of 2018 along with Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3077 of 2017 and

other bunch matters on 21.03.2018 where the reliefs were not similar and the learned Single Judge came to dispose of the said writ petitions directing

the matter to be considered by the Secretary with opportunity of hearing to the person, who has been impleaded in the writ petition through the

representative of Matri Sadan. Apparently, the case of the appellant is that there were other distinct contentions raised, particularly, relating to demand

of Royalty, which were covered by decisions and notification impugned, which were challenged in the Writ Petition. It is to be noted further that the

Writ Petition came to be disposed of at the admission stage; no opportunity was given for exchanging pleadings to the opposite party also. We would

think that the issues, which arose for consideration in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 757 of 2018 cannot be compared entirely with the issues, which arose in

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3077 of 2017 and therefore, the learned Single Judge should not have disposed of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 757 of 2018 in the

light of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3077 of 2017 and the matter should have been considered independently.

Accordingly, we allow the Appeal. The common judgment dated 22.03.2018 of the learned Single Judge will stand set aside insofar as it relates to

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 757 of 2018, which has been decided on the said basis on 22.03.2018. The writ petition will stand remitted back. It will stand

listed on 18.07.2018 in the Daily Cause List. We make it clear that we have not expressed any view regarding the merits of the case.