Shashi Vaishya v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the rejection of a mining permit application. Noting that a stay on mining had been lifted for all leaseholders in a connected PIL, the court directed the District Magistrate to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner and decide its application within two weeks of the reply, ensuring the order is not influenced by previous observations. Di
What the court decided
1
Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26984 of 2017 Petitioner :- Shashi Vaishya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Madan Lal Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
- The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to quash the order dated 4.5.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra/respondent No.2.
- Subsequent to the filing of the present writ petition, an amendment application was filed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The said amendment application was allowed vide order dated 27.9.2019. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, an amended copy of the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. By the aforesaid amendment application in the writ petition, a prayer has been made to quash the order dated 6.6.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 with a further prayer to issue a mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to permit the petitioner to excavate and transport minerals in the mining area and issue Form MM11 in favour of the petitioner in respect of Arazi/Gata No.4826 measuring area 2.50 acre, situated at Village Billi Markundi, Tehsil Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra.
- Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the respondent No.2/District Magistrate Sonbhadra executed a lease deed in favour of the petitioner on 30.5.2016 for a period of ten years, i.e., from 30.05.2016 to 29.05.2026. The lease in question was granted for excavation of Gitti and bolder. A writ petition being Writ C No.18362 of 2017 (Manoj Kumar Dixit Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) was filed by
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to permission for mining operations after the vacating of the interim order that had suspended mining activities for all leaseholders.
Whether the order rejecting the petitioner's representation dated 10.5.2019 was arbitrary and passed without a cogent reason after the specific restraint on the petitioner was lifted in the connected
Whether the writ petition should be disposed of by directing the respondent authority to issue a show-cause notice rather than deciding the merits immediately.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Shashi Vaishya
- respondent
State Of U.P.
- respondent
District Magistrate Sonbhadra
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · January
- Registered
- Case no.
- WRIC/26984/2017
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court