Alok Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 44351 of 2025

Alok Kumar Shukla

	Versus	.....Petitioner(s)
State Of U.P. And 2 Others		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Amit Pandey, Advoca	Upadhyay, Kanchan Rajan Upadhyay, Sr. te
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶4

Court No. - 40

¶5

HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ramesh Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajan Upadhyay, Advocate for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for State-respondents.

¶7

The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following relief:

¶8

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 06.12.2025 passed by respondent no. 1 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) and the recovery proceedings pursuant to orders dated 10.01.2025 and 24.09.2025 (Annexure Nos. 2 and 3 respectively to the writ petition).

¶9

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to make any recovery from the petitioner during the period where he was not permitted to undertake mining operation, i.e. 30.06.2023."

¶10

It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner had been granted mining lease dated 03.07.2019 for a period of 10 years for mining building stone (khanda, bolder and gitti) in village Kharka, Tehsil Sadar, District Mahoba. However, the petitioner on account of interference by the locals could not carry out

¶11

WRIC No. 44351 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

mining operations after 01.07.2023. In the meanwhile, the respondents also revoked the environmental clearance certificate granted to the petitioner vide order dated 20.06.2023 and the petitioner had to apply for new mining plan after depositing requisite fee. However, a fresh environmental clearance certificate was not issued to the petitioner by the respondents.

¶14

It is in this background that by means of the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the District Magistrate-respondent no. 3 a recovery of an amount of Rs.1,59,55,075/- as arrears of installment, an amount of Rs. 45,13,803/- as D.M.F. and Rs. 7,40,224/- as T.C.S. was issued against the petitioner.

¶15

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 10.01.2025 had filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham, Chitrakoot-respondent no. 2 under Section 79 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession), Rules, 2021, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 24.04.2025.

¶16

Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a revision under the Rules, 2021 registered as Revision Application No. 51(R)/G&M(UP)/2025 before the State Government. In the meanwhile, revised recovery was issued against the petitioner and the petitioner was constrained to file Writ-C No. 41940 of 2025 (Alok Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & others). The writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 28.11.2025 directing that the stay application filed by the petitioner would be decided as expeditiously as possible, preferably on or before 06.12.2025.

¶17

In pursuance thereto, the respondent no. 1 by means of the impugned order dated 06.12.2025 has rejected the application for interim relief filed by the petitioner in the aforesaid revision.

¶18

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the revision so filed would be rendered infructuous if the respondents make the recovery against the petitioner in pursuance to the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3.

¶19

Under the circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition with

¶20

WRIC No. 44351 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

a direction to the respondent no. 1 to decide the Revision No. 51(R)/G&M(UP)/2025 within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. It is further directed that the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed till the final decision in the revision filed by the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- at the office of District Magistrate, Mahoba-respondent no. 3 within a period of one month from today.

¶23

In the event of default in deposit of the aforesaid amount by the petitioner, the interim order granted above shall stand vacated automatically.

¶24

December 17, 2025 Arif (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Alok Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajendra Singh Bhadoriya vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Bahadur Maurya vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Hamdan @ Mo. Handaan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Khan Electric Works and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Drishti vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Aman Brick Field vs State of U.P. and 5 Others