Disposed

Sanjay Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC20 Dec 2018WRIC/2062/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged royalty and penalty imposed for alleged earth excavation 25 years ago. Court allowed application to file appeal, granted stay on coercive action, and disposed of writ. No legal principles defined.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to file application within one month not to be rejected on delay; coercive action pursuant to impugned order stayed.

Sanjay Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2062 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar Yadav,Babu Lal Ram,Dinesh Kumar Mishra

¶3

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶6

Upon a complaint made by the respondent no.7 on 28.5.2016, who have animosity against the petitioners, the liability of Rs.5,12,260/- has been imposed as royalty plus penalty for digging-up the earth for the field of the petitioners.

¶7

The allegation relates to the excavation, which was 25 years ago but it appears that the same was done for establishment of brick kiln on said land, therefore, the ordinary earth has to be treated as mineral.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that without any inquiry or establishing the fact that petitioners had excavated the ordinary earth, the royalty and penalty has been imposed.

¶9

Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel submits that against the order impugned, the petitioners have remedy of fling an appeal under Rule 77 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963.

¶10

It is not disputed that allegation is more than 25 years old and also it is not disputed that the petitioners have remedy of filing an appeal.

¶11

The petitioner may file an application, which shall not be thrown out only on the ground of delay and the same be considered and decided, in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is presented before the authority concerned. Till appeal is decided, as an interim measure it is provided that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners pursuant to the order dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure No.12 to the writ petition).

¶12

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶13

Order Date :- 20.12.2018 Ajeet

¶14

( Vivek Varma, J. ) ( Abhinava Upadhya, J.)

Sanjay Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rita Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

Pyare Lal Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Surat Nishad Vs State of U P and Another

Braham Dutt Gaur Vs District Judge and 4 Others

Shivkali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandra Shekhar Vs State of U P and Another