Disposed¶12

Mahendra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Special Secy. Deptt. of Geology and Mining Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC31 Jan 2025WRIC/957/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mahendra Yadav v. State of U.P. (Deptt. of Geology and Mining), WRIT - C No. 957 of 2025, Lucknow Bench, Allahabad High Court, order dated 31.1.2025, coram Rajan Roy J. and Brij Raj Singh J. Keywords: interim relief rejection; revision under Rule 80 U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules 2021; stay of recovery of Rs. 69.00 lakhs and odd; direction to decide revision within two months; mining concession; neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:6790-DB.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with direction that the order impugned before the Revisional Authority remains stayed till disposal of the revision; revision to be decided within two months; recovery orders executable only if the revision is dismissed. ¶12

Mahendra Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Special Secy. Deptt. of Geology and Mining Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the Revisional Authority considered the requisite parameters for grant or refusal of the interim relief application in the petitioner's admitted revision.

¶9

Court's answer

Prima facie, the contention that there was no consideration of requisite parameters for grant or refusal of interim relief appears correct; once the revision was admitted on merits and a recovery order existed, the least required was to stay the recovery till disposal of the revision or give reasons, but no reasoning was found except formality in the impugned order.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The revision of the petitioner is to be decided at the earliest, within a period of two months.

¶10

Key takeaways

The order impugned before the Revisional Authority shall remain stayed till the disposal of the revision; in the event the revision is dismissed, it shall be open for the concerned to execute the orders of recovery.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 957 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; coram Rajan Roy and Brij Raj Singh, JJ.; order dated 31.1.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:6790-DB): The petitioner's revision under Rule 80 of the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2021 had been admitted on 13.01.2025, but his interim relief application was rejected without consideration of the requisite parameters. Holding the contention prima facie correct and noting absence of reasoning beyond formality despite an existing recovery order of Rs. 69.00 lakhs and odd, the Court disposed of the writ petition directing that the revision be decided within two months and that the order impugned before the Revisional Authority remain stayed till disposal of the revision; if the revision is dismissed, the recovery orders may be executed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6790-DB

¶2

Court No. - 2

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 957 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Mahendra Yadav

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Special Secy. Deptt. Of Geology And Mining Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶7

1. Heard.

¶8

The revision of the petitioner under Rule 80 of the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2021 has been admitted on 13.01.2025 for hearing, however, the interim relief application has been rejected.

¶9

The contention is that there is no consideration of requisite parameters for grant or refusal of the interim relief.

¶10

Prima facie, the contention appears to be correct. Let the revision of the petitioner be decided at the earliest, say, within a period of two months. In the meantime, the order which is impugned in the revision shall remain stayed, meaning thereby, the recovery shall not be made, as, once the revision has been admitted for hearing on merits and there is an order of recovery of an amount to the tune of Rs. 69.00 lakhs and odd, then, the least that was required was to stay the recovery till disposal of the revision or to give reasons as to why it cannot be done, but, we do not find any reasoning except formality having been done while passing the impugned order.

¶11

At this stage, learned standing counsel says that the writ petition be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid.

¶12

We accordingly dispose of the writ petition with the observation/direction that the order impugned before the Revisional Authority shall remain stayed till the disposal of the revision. In the event, the revision is dismissed, it shall be open for the concerned to execute the orders of recovery.

¶13

[Brij Raj Singh, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

¶14

Order Date :- 31.1.2025 Santosh/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mahendra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Special Secy. Deptt. of Geology and Mining Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Special Secy. Deptt. of Geology and Mining Lko. and 3 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shailendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Shailja Gangwar Vs U.P. Real Setate Regulatory Authority Thru.Its Member Lko and 2 Others

Suman Singh Vs Union of India Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi Thru. Chief Secy. and 3 Others

Vishal Srivastava Vs Collector Sultanpur and 2 Others

Smt. Rachana Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 2 Others

Sandhya Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. (Transport Deptt.) and 2 Others