Vishal Kumar Thru. His Power of Attorney Holder Dikshant vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Deptt. of Geology and Mining Lko. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Vishal Kumar Thru. His Power of Attorney Holder Dikshant vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Deptt. of Geology and Mining Lko. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of: the impugned order dated January 9, 2026 is quashed insofar as it rejects the petitioner's application for interim relief; the matter is remanded to the State Government to pass a fresh reasoned order on the interim relief application within four weeks; till then no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner; leave granted to the authorities to decide the main revision application expeditiously.

Issue for consideration

Whether the State Government's order dated January 9, 2026 rejecting the petitioner's application for interim relief in the admitted revision is sustainable when the jurisdictional issue regarding the District Magistrate's power to impose penalty under Rule 58 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 was not considered.

Court's answer

There was no consideration of the jurisdictional issue involved in the matter, and the application for interim relief filed by the petitioner was rejected straightaway.

Ratio / Principle

The order impugned in the writ petition, insofar as it relates to rejection of the interim relief application, is not sustainable and is quashed to that extent.

Key takeaways

The matter is remanded to the State Government to consider the application for interim relief filed by the petitioner again by passing a fresh reasoned order.ratio¶19
The exercise of fresh consideration of the application for interim relief shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.ratio¶20
Till the fresh consideration of the interim relief application is completed, no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH), Court No. 3 (Shekhar B. Saraf and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, JJ.) — WRIT - C No. 2308 of 2026, decided May 4, 2026 — Vishal Kumar thru. his Power of Attorney Holder Dikshant v. State of U.P. thru. Secy., Deptt. of Geology and Mining and 6 Others — Petitioner's revision against a penalty order, on the ground that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to impose penalty under Rule 58 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021, was admitted by the State Government by order dated January 9, 2026, but his application for interim relief was rejected without consideration of the jurisdictional issue — Held: the impugned order is not sustainable to the extent it rejects the interim relief application and is quashed to that extent; matter remanded to the State Government to pass a fresh reasoned order on the interim relief application within four weeks; no coercive measure against the petitioner till then; leave granted to decide the main revision expeditiously; writ petition disposed of.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

WRIT - C No. - 2308 of 2026

Vishal Kumar Thru. His Power Of Attorney Holder Dikshant

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. The Secy. Deptt. Of Geology And Mining Lko. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pushpila Bisht, Surbhi Anand, Tanay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 3

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

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

The captioned writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated January 9, 2026 passed by the State Government, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was admitted, but his application for interim relief was rejected.

It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner in his revision had categorically taken a ground that the District Magistrate does not have any jurisdiction to pass order for imposing penalty under Rule 58 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021.

It has further been argued that there is no consideration over the said aspects of the matter and without considering the contentions of the petitioner in respect of the jurisdictional issue, the application for interim relief filed by the petitioner had been rejected.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents though has tried to defend the order impugned in this writ petition but could not apprise the Court as to how the jurisdictional issue has been considered in the order impugned in this writ petition.

WRIC No. 2308 of 2026

2

We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsels appearing for the parties and we find that there is no consideration of the said jurisdictional issue involved in the matter and application for interim relief filed by the petitioner had been rejected straightaway.

In light of the same, we are of the view that the order impugned in this writ petition insofar as it relates to rejection of the interim relief application is not sustainable. Accordingly, it is quashed to that extent.

The matter is remanded to the State Government to consider application for interim relief filed by the petitioner again by passing a fresh reasoned order.

The aforesaid exercise of fresh consideration of the application for interim relief shall be completed within a period of four weeks from date.

Till the said exercise is done, no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner.

Leave is granted to the authorities to decide the main revision application expeditiously.

With the above observation/ direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

(Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

May 4, 2026 Ashutosh

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench