Disposed

M/S Sagar Brick Field v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2021WRIC/26470/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner challenged an impugned recovery order without hearing. Relying on the availability of an alternative remedy under State Minor and Minerals Rules, the Court held that intervention was unnecessary but directed the petitioner to file an appeal with a stay application.

What did the court decide?

None. Petitioner directed to file appeal/revision under Rule 77/78 of U.P. Minor and Minerals (Concession) Rules 1963 along with stay application within ten days.

M/S Sagar Brick Field Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26470 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Sagar Brick Field Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

Petitioner is before this Court assailing the validity of impugned recovery dated 7.11.2020 passed by District Magistrate, Kaushambi, respondent no.3. Further prayer has been made to restrain the respondents, especially respondent no.3 and 4 from adopting any coercive measure against the petitioner pursuant to impugned recovery order dated 7.11.2020.

¶7

Shri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner precisely submits that entire proceeding is ex-parte and at no point of time any opportunity of hearing whatsoever is extended to the petitioner.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel raised an objection that against the order impugned, the petitioner has got efficacious alternative remedy to file an appeal/revision under Rule 77/78 of U.P. Minor and Minerals (Concession) Rules 1963 and as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

¶9

In the facts and circumstances of the case, once against the impugned order efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under Rules 77/78 of U.P. Minor and Minerals (Concession) Rules 1963, then there is no reason or occasion to intervene in the matter. However, in case the petitioner prefers an appeal/revision alongwith stay application within ten days from today, the Competent Authority would proceed to decide the stay application within further six weeks time, but certainly after providing ample opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders. It is made clear that the court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶10

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶11

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order

¶12

downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicants alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶13

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶14

Order Date :- 5.1.2021 A. Pandey

¶15

Digitally signed by Justice Mahesh Digitally signed by Justice Sanjay Chandra Tripathi Kumar Pachori Date: 2021.01.07 15:28:53 IST Date: 2021.01.07 15:30:01 IST Reason: Document Owner Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Allahabad

M/S Sagar Brick Field v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sagar Brick Field 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sham-E-Husaini Institute of Nursing College, Hospital and Trauma Centre and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Abound Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramkrisna Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another