Disposed

Basant Raj v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC17 Dec 2020WPMS/416/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging illegal mining activities and the lease granting process. Instead of deciding on merits, the court directed the Secretary Mining to hear the petitioner's representation and decide the matter after giving the mining contractor notice.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to make representation to Secretary Mining; authority to decide after hearing both parties within eight weeks of receipt.

Basant Raj Vs State of Uttarakhand — Mining and Natural Resources | Uttarakhand HC (2020)

¶1

WPMS No. 416 of 2020 Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

¶2

Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶3

Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the parties though video conferencing.

¶5

According to the petitioner, respondent no. 1 granted a mining lease in respect of Magnetite & Dolomite, in favour of respondent no. 4, in the year 2014.

¶6

It is the contention of the petitioner that he never gave consent or No Objection Certificate to respondent no. 4 for extracting minerals from his private land; yet, respondent no. 4 has excavated his land for bringing out minerals. It is further the contention of the petitioner that respondent no. 4 has violated conditions of the mining lease.

¶7

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:

¶8

“i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/ directing the respondent authorities to restrain the private respondent no. 4 from carrying out illegal mining activities on the land of petitioner at khata no. 35, sabik no. 3991, khata no. 44, sabid no. 1603, khata no. 59, sabik no. 3790, khata no. 79, sabik no. 503, total admeasuring 12 nali, 15 muthi, at Village-Dungara, Tehsil and District, Pithoragarh and on the State Government’s land, and directing the State authorities to take suitable action against the responsible officers; who are involved in illegal mining activities with collusion of private respondent (respondent No.4).

¶9

ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/ directing the respondents to cancel the lease granted to respondent no. 4, as he is continuously violating the conditions of lease deed as well as mining rules.

¶10

iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/ directing the respondents to pay damages to the petitioner for damaging the land of the petitioner and indemnify to the State Government as per the mining rules.”

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Joint Inspection Report dated 27.08.2020 (annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 1), which is signed, besides other officers of Mining & Revenue Department, by the Deputy Director/Senior Mining Officer, Pithoragarh. Based on the said report, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the joint inspection also, it was found that respondent no. 4 has dug up private land of the villagers.

¶12

Without going into the merits of the case, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met if petitioner is permitted to make representation to Secretary Mining, Government of Uttarakhand, who shall take decision in the matter.

¶13

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation to Secretary Mining, Government of Uttarakhand, within two weeks from today. If such representation is made within the stipulated period, the Secretary Mining shall look into the matter and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of representation alongwith certified copy of this order.

¶14

It goes without saying that, before taking any decision, respondent no. 4 shall also be heard by Secretary, Mining.

¶15

Let a certified copy of this order be issued within 24 hours.

¶16

(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.) 17.12.2020

¶17

Arpan

Basant Raj v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basant Raj v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Umed Singh Vs Azizul Wahid Siddiqui and Others Legal Heir Azim Baksh through

Kunwar Sen Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dhananjay Prasad Nautiyal Vs the Chief Medical Officer

Bhagirathi Outdoor Photographer Association Office Trimurti Color Lab Vs State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary Local Bodies

Divyansh Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary

Swami Shukdevanand Trust Vs Sharad Chandra Mishra