A writ petition challenging royalty payment was dismissed. The court held the petitioner liable for royalty for the period the brick-kiln was operational from 01.04.2014 to 09.10.2014 despite the subsequent cancellation of the licence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33603 of 2019
Petitioner :- Om Brick Kilns And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Yadav,Mahendra Pratap
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
In view of the orders dated 22.10.2019 and 01.11.2019 passed by the court, the dispute in the writ petition is regarding the amount of Rs.78.950/- payable as royalty for the year 2014-15 for running the brick-kiln.
In this regard submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is not liable for payment of royalty for the aforesaid period as during this period his licence to run the brick-kiln was illegally cancelled and the appeal against the same was allowed on 08.04.2015. Thus, as he had not run the brick-kiln he is not liable for payment of any royalty.
The record reveals that the licence of the petitioner to run the brick-kiln was revoked on 09.10.2014. This order on being challenged was set aside vide order dated 08.04.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority.
The aforesaid facts reveal that in the year 2014-15 the petitioner had run the brick-kiln from 01.04.2014 till 09.10.2014 when the licence was revoked. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner had not run the brick-kiln during the entire year is incorrect and not acceptable.
Since the petitioner had run the brick-kiln for some period i.e. from 01.04.2014 to 09.10.2014 he is liable for the payment of royalty for the said period of the year 2014-15.
Accordingly, we find no merit in the submission so as to warrant interference in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction.
The Writ Petition is dismissed .
Order Date :- 7.11.2019 piyush
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is liable to pay royalty for the period their brick-kiln was operational before the licence was revoked.
Om Brick Kilns And 2 Others
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Pankaj Mithal
Vivek Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
