Disposed

Smt. Amrita Shailesh Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2022WRIC/2075/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file a revision against the appellate order in minor mineral matters. The Revisional Authority is directed to decide the revision within three months of filing.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to file revision within two weeks; Revisional Authority directed to decide revision within three months.

Smt. Amrita Shailesh Chaturvedi Vs State of… — Mining and Natural Resources | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court Serial No. 38

¶2

**HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD *****

¶3

WRIT - C No. - 2075 of 2022

¶4

Smt. Amrita Shailesh Chaturvedi .....Petitioner

¶5

Through :- Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh and Mr. Tejas Singh, Advocate

¶6

v/s

¶7

State of U.P. and others .....Respondents Through :- Mr. Alok Kumar Singh, Standing Counsel for respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, JUDGE

¶9

ORDER

¶10

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated June 29, 2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur and the order dated December 31, 2021 passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi. Vide order dated June 29, 2019, the District Magistrate had cancelled the mining lease of the petitioner and directed for recovery of the lease amount in addition to forfeiture of security. Beside that, the petitioner was black listed for a period of two years. Appeal against the aforesaid order was rejected by the Commissioner vide order dated December 31, 2021.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of revision against the order passed by the appellate authority in terms of Rule-80 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to avail of the remedy of revision. However, he submitted that the petitioner will file the revision within two weeks from today, the Revisional Authority be

¶13

2 WRIC No. 2075 of 2022

¶14

directed to dispose of the same expeditiously.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, in case, the revision is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be decided by the Revisional Authority within a period of three months from the date of filing.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid stand taken by learned counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedy of revision against the impugned order dated December 31, 2021. The Revisional Authority is directed to decide the revision within a period of three months from the date the same is filed, in accordance with law.

¶17

(Piyush Agrawal, J.) (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)

¶18

Allahabad 04.03.2022 Shiraz/SA

¶19

Whether the order is speaking : Yes Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No

Smt. Amrita Shailesh Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Amrita Shailesh Chaturvedi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nar Singh Vs the State of U.P. and Others

Dheeraj Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nar Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sanjiv Kumar Singh Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Zaheer and 13 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Murtaja Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others