Disposed

M/S Ishana Construction, through Its Partner Smt. Afreena Khan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2022WRIC/34888/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the petition observing that the two prayers regarding mining lease and quashing of show cause notice are interlinked. It refused to examine merits at this stage, granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a comprehensive reply including the relief sought within 10 days to be decided by a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to submit a comprehensive reply to the show cause notice including prayer (I) within 10 days for decision within next three weeks.

M/S Ishana Construction, through Its Partner… — Mining and Natural Resources | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34888 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Ishana Construction, Through Its Partner Smt. Afreena Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devbrat Mukherjee Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

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

¶6

There are two prayers in this petition. The first is to command the second respondent to provide requisite OTP to generate Form eMM-11 from the portal of the first respondent to enable mining operations for which the petitioner holds a subsisting mining lease. The second is to quash the show cause notice dated 12.10.2022 by which the petitioner has been called upon to submit explanation as to why for certain deficiencies noticed in the inspection report relating to violation of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 action be not taken against the petitioner.

¶7

In our view, both the reliefs are interlinked as they arise out of the mining lease existing in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the appropriate course for the petitioner is to submit a response to the show cause notice dated 12.10.2022 and make a demand before the second respondent for the relief sought vide prayer I.

¶8

As on date the respondents are yet to take a decision on the issues raised by the petitioner in this petition therefore we do not propose to examine those issues at this stage, particularly, when they can be raised in the reply and decided while considering the reply to the show cause notice. We therefore deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a comprehensive reply to the show cause notice before the second respondent by including the prayer sought by way relief no.(I).

¶9

If any such comprehensive representation is submitted within 10 days from today, the same shall be addressed and decided in accordance with law, preferably, within next three weeks, by a reasoned order.

¶10

The petition stands disposed off .

¶11

It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the claim of the petitioner.

¶12

Order Date :- 21.11.2022 Sunil Kr Tiwari

¶13

Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR TIWARI Date: 2022.11.22 10:05:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Ishana Construction, through Its Partner Smt. Afreena Khan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ishana Construction, through Its Partner Smt. Afreena Khan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Udaybhan Chauhan Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Virendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sahab Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramgopal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Son Dev Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mahendra Pal Singh Nagar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others