Dismissed

Jeewan Singh Khetwal v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Mines and Minerals at Dehradun

Uttarakhand HC14 Dec 2019WPMS/2486/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge court dismissed a writ petition challenging a mining penalty order, holding that a statutory appeal was available. The petitioner was granted four weeks to pursue the remedy before the appellate authority, with specific directions regarding the deposit of the remaining penalty amount.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to pursue statutory appeal within four weeks; no further deposit sought if bank guarantee furnished.

Jeewan Singh Khetwal Vs State of… — Mining and Natural Resources | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2486 of 2018

¶3

Jeewan Singh Khetwal ……….Petitioner

¶4

State of Uttarakhand & others

¶5

…Respondents

¶6

Present:- Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Additional CSC for the State/respondents.

¶7

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

¶8

Delay condonation application (CLMA No.6812 of 2019) is allowed. Delay in filing the counter affidavit is hereby condoned. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1 is taken on record.

¶9

Miscellaneous application (IA No.16635/2019) is also allowed. Rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner is also taken on record.

¶10

The petitioner is engaged in mining activities. The respondent authorities have issued a notice to the petitioner for allegedly extracting river bed material in excess to that he was authorized under the law and subsequently a penalty has been imposed against the petitioner to the tune of Rs.9,18,637.50/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Eighteen Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Seven and Fifty paise only) vide order dated 02.08.2018. This is an order which the petitioner has challenged before this Court.

¶11

Learned State Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that the impugned order before this Court is an appellable o rder under Rule 77 of the Uttarakhand Minor

¶12

¶13

Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2001 before the Divisional Commissioner.

¶14

In view of the fact that the statutory appeal is available to the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the appellate authority.

¶15

It is also made clear that the dismissal of the present writ petition shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner before the appellate authority. Moreover, the appellate authority shall not insist on any further deposit from the petitioner before hearing the appeal since half of the amount as directed by this Court vide order dated 20.08.2018 has already been deposited by the petitioner before the concerned authority and for the remaining amount, the petitioner has given the bank guarantee. Let the petitioner approach the appellate authority within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, which shall then decide the case in accordance with law.

¶16

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 14.12.2019

¶17

Ankit/

Jeewan Singh Khetwal v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Mines and Minerals at Dehradun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeewan Singh Khetwal v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Mines and Minerals at Dehradun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harbhajan Kaur Vs State of Uttarakhand

Gulab Singh Alias Kunal Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Smt. Deepa Virmani Vs Virendra Dang

Smt Meena Singh Vs Vijay Kumar

Smt Meena Singh Vs Vijay Kumar

Manohar Lal Bailwal Vs National Institute of Open Schooling