Disposed¶11

M/S Mount Victoria Granites Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC3 May 2023WRIC/1603/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mount Victoria Granites; granite dimensional stone mining lease 24.6.2012-23.6.2027; mandamus to continue mining; certiorari against State Government order 29.11.2021 and District Magistrate Lalitpur order 21.01.2019; disposal in terms of Coordinate Bench judgment; M/S Peethambra Granite Private Limited Writ-C No.30066 of 2017 dated 18.02.2020; quashing of impugned orders; liberty to pass fresh order; Allahabad High Court; order date 3.5.2023.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the judgment in M/S Peethambra Granite Private Limited (Writ-C No.30066 of 2017, dated 18.02.2020); impugned orders dated 29.11.2021 (State Government) and 21.01.2019 (District Magistrate, Lalitpur) quashed; liberty granted to respondents to pass a fresh order in light of the law laid down in that judgment. ¶11

M/S Mount Victoria Granites Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner can be permitted to continue mining operations in respect of Granite Sized Dimensional Stone for the complete lease period 24.6.2012 to 23.6.2027 notwithstanding the impugned orders (mandamus sought). +1 more

¶7

Ratio / Principle

On the joint statement of learned counsel for the parties that the controversy is squarely covered by the Coordinate Bench judgment in M/S Peethambra Granite Private Limited (Writ-C No.30066 of 2017, dated 18.02.2020), this writ petition is disposed of in terms of that judgment.

¶11

Key takeaways

The impugned orders dated 29.11.2021 passed by the State Government and the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Lalitpur are quashed.ratio¶11
Liberty is granted to the respondents to pass an order afresh in the light of the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in M/S Peethambra Granite Private Limited (supra).ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (WRIT - C No. 1603 of 2022, decided 3.5.2023; Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Anish Kumar Gupta, JJ.) - M/S Mount Victoria Granites Ltd. sought mandamus to continue granite sized dimensional stone mining under a lease granted and renewed for 24.6.2012 to 23.6.2027, and certiorari against the State Government order dated 29.11.2021 and the District Magistrate, Lalitpur order dated 21.01.2019. Learned counsel for both sides jointly stated that the controversy was squarely covered by a Coordinate Bench judgment of the Court dated 18.02.2020 in Writ-C No.30066 of 2017 (M/S Peethambra Granite Private Limited vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others). In view of the joint statement, the petition was disposed of in terms of that judgment; both impugned orders were quashed, and liberty was granted to the respondents to pass an order afresh in the light of the law laid down in the Peethambra Granite judgment.

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1603 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Mount Victoria Granites Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishnu Pratap,Vijay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Vishnu Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:

¶7

"i. TO ISSUE a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to continue the mining operation in respect of the Granite Sized Dimensional Stone in pursuance of the lease granted and renewed during the complete period of mining lease i.e. 24.6.2012 to 23.6.2027.

¶8

ii. TO ISSUE a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents not to interfere and obstruct the mining operation of Petitioner during the period of lease.

¶9

iii. TO ISSUE a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 29.11.2021 passed by the State Government as well as the order dated 21.1.2019 passed by District Magistrate respectively to this writ petition."

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel jointly state that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a Co-ordinate Bench judgement of this Court dated 18.02.2020 in Writ-C No.30066 of 2017 (M/S Peethambra Granite Private Limited vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others) and other connected writ petitions, therefore, the present writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the judgement in the case of M/S Peethambra Granite Private Limited (supra).

¶11

In view of the joint statement of learned counsels for the parties, as aforenoted, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgement in the case of M/S Peethambra Granite Private Limited (supra). The impugned orders dated 29.11.2021 passed by the State Government as well as the order of the District Magistrate, Lalitpur dated 21.01.2019 are hereby quashed. Liberty is granted to the respondents to pass an order afresh in the light of the law laid down by a Coordinate Bench judgement of this Court in the case of M/S Peethambra Granite Private Limited (supra).

¶12

Order Date :- 3.5.2023

¶13

Digitally signed by :- Ankit. ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Mount Victoria Granites Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mount Victoria Granites Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anuj Autar Sharma Vs District Magistrate Moradabad and 5 Others

Udayveer Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Javed Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Rameshwar Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anand Kumar Vs Union of India and 9 Others

Rakesh Kumar Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others