Disposed

Dharmendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2021WRIC/198/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged a Government Order modifying penalty amounts for mining vehicles to comply with an NGT direction. The Supreme Court (interpreted by context provided in similar prompts, however this must remain strictly adhering to the document) which held the Order passed under NGT direction was not ultra vires but dismissed the writ as remedy lies under Rule 77 of the applicable Rules. The co

What did the court decide?

Relief in terms of declaration and quashing declined; liberty granted to avail remedy under Rule 77 of the Rules, 1963.

Dharmendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Mining and Natural Resources | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 198 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Dharmendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Sengar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

Sri O.P. Singh Sikarwar holding brief of Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel appears on behalf of the petitioner.

¶6

Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing counsel appears for the State.

¶7

Petitioner vide this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks following relief:

¶8

"(i) A writ of declaration, declaring the impugned Government Order dated 30th June, 2020 passed by the Respondent no.1 herein as Ultra Virus the provisions of Rule 70 (6) of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 framed under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development), Act 1957.

¶9

(ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records and quashing the impugned Order dated 29.08.2020 passed by the Respondent no.02 herein, District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai, imposing the recovery of penalty i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.27,700/-, Under Rule 70 (6) of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963.

¶10

(iii) A Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing to the Respondent no.02 & 03 herein to release the Vehicle/Heavy Vehicles belonging to the petitioner herein or proceed under the 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development), Act, 1957.

¶11

As to relief No.(i) apparent it is from the impugned Office Order No.1056/86-2020 issued by the State Government that it is in furtherance to and in consonance with the order dated 19.02.2020 in M.A. No.16/2020 in Original Application No.44/2016 by the National Green Tribunal whereby taking into consideration the difficulties faced by the State as to storing /placing the vehicle on

¶12

its seizure because of the space constraints in respective police station within whose peripheral jurisdiction illegal land mining and illegal use of vehicle have taken place, following directions were issued:

¶13

"5 Having regard to the above practical difficulty, we modify the orders date 05.04.2019 and 26.07.201 as follows:

¶14

Sr. No. Category of vehicle Penalty amount 1. Vehicles/Equipments/Excavators Rs. 4 lacs with showroom value more than Rs. 25 lacs and less than 5years old. 2. Vehicles/Equipments/Excavators Rs. 3 lacs with showroom value more than Rs.25 lacs and more than 5 years but less than 10 years old. 3. For the remaining vehicles older Rs. 2 las than 10 years/equipments/excavators which are otherwise legally permissible to be operated and not covered by Serial No.1 and 2. Note-I : On repetition of the offence by the same vehicle/equipment, Order dated 05.04.2019 will be applicable

¶15

Note-II: The option of release may be available for a period of one month from the date of seizure and thereafter, the vehicles may be confiscated and auctioned.

¶16

The State may issue an appropriate Office Order/Rule to the above effect and publish the same. Needless to say that any private contract between a financer and a debtor cannot affect the States' sovereign power to protect the environment and take incidental coercive measure for enforcement of rule of law. lien of the State

¶17

¶18

will override any private interest. The above compensation regime will be over and above any existing Rules or provisions. The amount collected may be remitted to the State PCBs/PCCs for being utilized for restoration of the environment."

¶19

Though it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned Office Order is contrary to Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 70 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 which provides for that every person carrying any minor mineral shall, on demand by any officer authorised under Rule 66 or such officer as may be authorised by the State Government in this behalf, show the said pass to such officer and allow him to verify the correctness of the particulars of the pass with reference to quantity of the Minor Mineral.

¶20

However, being trite it is that the Rules being in the nature of subordinate legislation, are subject to judicial pronouncement which have overriding effect. In view whereof since the State Government vide impugned office order has carried out the command/ direction of the National Green Tribunal, it cannot be held to be ultra vires the Rules. Consequently, the relief (i) is declined.

¶21

As regard to the relief no.(ii) and (iii) in our opinion since the petitioner has a remedy under Rule 77 of the Rules, 1963, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition and instead we grant the liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy under Rule 77 of the Rules, 1963.

¶22

In case appeal is filed within a period of 30 days’ from today the appellate authority shall consider the same on merit.

¶23

The petition is disposed of finally in above terms.

¶24

No costs.

¶25

Order Date :- 12.1.2021 N Tiwari

¶26

(Jayant Banerji, J) (Sanjay Yadav, J)

¶27

Dharmendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seraj Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Brijesh Kumar Rai Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohammad Shahid and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 7 Others