Partly allowed

Smt. Rajeshwari Devi v. State and Another

Uttarakhand HC7 Mar 2013WPMS/416/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of writ petition challenging District Magistrate order for royalty and penalty. Held that alternative remedy is not a bar due to natural justice violation. Directed DM to give hearing, consider petitioner materials and DFO report, and pass speaking order within eight weeks, without being influenced by impugned judgment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set in abeyance; mandate issued to District Magistrate to provide hearing, consider materials and DFO report, and pass speaking order within eight weeks.

Smt. Rajeshwari Devi Vs State and Another — Public Procurement and Tenders | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

WPMS No. 416 of 2013

¶2

Hon’ble Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.

¶3

Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jiterndra Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶4

Ms. Puja Banga, Brief Holder for the State.

¶5

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I dispose of the writ petition without calling for any affidavit.

¶6

By this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the District Magistrate, Haridwar. By this impugned order, the petitioner has been asked to pay a sum of Rs.65,54,050/- as royalty amount and also penalty of Rs.25,000/-. In the body of the petition, in clause (i) of sub paragraph (J) of paragraph 21 of the petition, it is stated that the impugned order was passed ex-parte and no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner has a remedy by an appeal. It is well settled law that where there is a complete violation of natural justice, alternative remedy cannot be bar at all to entertain the writ petition.

¶7

I, therefore, direct the respondent No. 2 to keep the impugned order in abeyance till

¶8

such time as directed by this Court. The District Magistrate shall give notice to the petitioner for hearing and the petitioner would be entitled to produce all the materials at the time of hearing. The District Magistrate shall consider the material so to be produced by the petitioner and the District Magistrate shall also consider the report submitted by the District Forest Officer and prepared by a Committee in which D.F.O. is a member. After considering everything, the District Magistrate shall pass a speaking order. This exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. This fresh consideration is to be made without being influenced or swayed by the impugned judgment and order. The District Magistrate will pass a fresh order either reversing or varying the impugned order.

¶9

(K.J. Sengupta, J.)

¶10

Dated 07.03.2013 Aswal

Smt. Rajeshwari Devi v. State and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajeshwari Devi v. State and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rajesh Vs State and Ors.

Amit Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr.

Aditya Koniyalminor Vs State and Ors.

Jaiveer Singh Vs State and Another

Garwahl Motor Owners Union Ltd. Vs Haridwar Devlopment Authority and Another

Harpreet Vs Govt. Degree College Bajur and Another