VINITA SINGH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

K.M. JOSEPH, C.J

1. Appellant is the writ petitioner. The reliefs sought in the writ petition are as follows:Â

 “i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16 01-2018 passed by respondent no. 1.

 ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 12 07-2017 & 25-04-2016 passed by respondent no.

3 & 4.Â

iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to recover the sum of Rs. 1, 14,

77,500/- and Rs. 25,000/- from the petitioner in pursuance of order dated 25-04-2016 & 12-07 2017.  Â

In short, the case of the respondents appears to be that the appellant/writ petitioner was involved in illegal mining and, accordingly, a sum of Rs. 1

crore and above was demanded. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned decision, has passed the following order:

“Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents.Â

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on Stay Application (CLMA No.1994 of 2018).Â

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that an interim relief be granted. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as

considering the fact that there is a finding against the petitioner after a due enquiry, this Court is not inclined to grant any interim relief as sought by the

petitioner.Â

Consequently, Stay application stands rejected. Three weeks’ time is granted to the respondents to file counter affidavit. Petitioner may file

rejoinder affidavit within a period of three weeks thereafter.Â

 List this case on 09.04.2018 in the daily cause list.â€​ Â

We heard Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, learned Standing Counsel on behalf

of the State of Uttarakhand/respondents.Â

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be sub-served if we request the learned

Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition itself within a time limit and dispose of this appeal. Â

Accordingly, we direct that the counter affidavit will be filed, as directed by the learned Single Judge, namely, within a period of three weeks and no

further time will be taken for the same, and the appellant/writ petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit within a period of one week thereafter.  Â

We maintain the direction that the case will stand listed on

09.04.2018 in the daily cause list, and we request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition at the earliest and, if possible, within a period

of one week from 09.04.2018. However, we make it clear that we have not expressed any view regarding the contentions of the appellant/writ

petitioner and we leave open all the contentions of the appellant/writ petitioner.  Â

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.Â