Disposed

Smt. Jimmy Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 May 2019WRIC/18101/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a mining licence holder, challenged a show cause notice and sought quashing and removal/auction of seized minerals. The court held that writs against notices are generally not maintainable but stayed proceedings to direct the District Magistrate to decide the reply within three months to meet ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

Direction to District Magistrate to consider petitioner's reply to the show cause notice and pass an appropriate order within three months.

Smt. Jimmy Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Mining and Natural Resources | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18101 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Jimmy Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

The petitioner is a licence holder under the Uttar Pradesh (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2002. A notice has been issued to her on 21st June, 2018 pointing out certain violations of the terms of the rules and the licence. The petitioner in response to the said notice issued from the office of the District Magistrate has submitted a reply on 04th July, 2018, which is still under consideration and no order has been passed by the District Magistrate. Against this background, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the following reliefs:

¶6

" a) issue writ, order of direction of in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned notice/ letter no. 1412/2018 dated 2106-2018 issued by the respondent no. 2- District Magistrate, Chitrakoot (Annexure no. 3).

¶7

b) issue writ, order of direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to remove or auction the seized mineral- Balu from Gata No. 1281/1, village Kaheta Mafi, Tehsil Karvi, District Chitrakoot expeditiously."

¶8

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶9

We find that the petitioner has challenged the notice in this writ proceedings. It is a well settled law that a writ petition against the show cause notice is ordinarily not maintainable. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh and others, AIR 1996 SC 691 , which

¶10

has consistently been followed.

¶11

In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage. However, from the facts mentioned above it is evident that the petitioner has submitted a reply to the show cause notice dated 21st June, 2018, but no decision has been taken as yet.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met by issuing a direction upon the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot to consider the cause of the petitioner and pass the appropriate order on her reply to the show cause notice in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order.

¶13

Thus, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 27.5.2019 SKT/-

Smt. Jimmy Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jimmy Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samay Singh Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

Shrikant and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Anil Kumar Pal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rohit Pant Vs Smt. Ritambhara @ Shikha

Yogesh @ Pintu Kumar Vs Manorma Devi

Amit Singh and 3 Others Vs Union of India and 2 Others