Disposed

Ajay Singh Mahar v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC10 Dec 2020WPMS/75/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ relief mandating restraint of illegal mining, cancellation of lease, and damages. Court held that the dispute is primarily a private matter not amenable to writ. Instead, petition was disposed of with liberty to file representation to Secretary, Mining, who must decide after hearing the lessee within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; liberty granted to petitioner to make representation to Secretary (Mining) for decision within eight weeks after hearing respondent no. 4.

Ajay Singh Mahar Vs State of Uttarakhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Uttarakhand HC (2020)

¶1

WPMS No. 75 of 2020

¶2

Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

¶3

Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶4

Mr. Vijay Khanduri, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

¶6

Petitioner is a resident of Village Bin, Tehsil & District Pithoragrh. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought following relief:-

¶7

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/directing the respondent authorities restrain the private respondent no. 4 from carrying out illegal mining activities on the land of petitioner at Khata no. 46, 73, 74, 86 and 114, bashrah no. 1625, 2942, 320, 1063at Village Dungara, Tehsil and District Pithoragarh and on the State Government’s land of, 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)

¶8

(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.

¶9

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/directing the respondents to pay damages to the petitioner and indemnify to the state government as per the mining rules.

¶10

From the pleadings, made in the writ petition, it is apparent that petitioner is raising private dispute with respondent no.

¶11

Private dispute cannot be resolved in the public law remedy.

¶12

In such view of the matter, the relief, as claimed in the writ petition, cannot be granted.

¶13

However, having regard to the allegations made in the writ petition that respondent no. 4 has violated the condition of lease, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach Secretary, Mining, Government of Uttarakhand by making representation. If such representation is made within ten days from today, Secretary (Mining) shall take decision thereupon, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation along with certified copy of this order.

¶14

Before taking decision, Secretary (Mining) shall also hear respondent no. 4.

¶15

Aswal

¶16

(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.) 10.12.2020

Ajay Singh Mahar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Singh Mahar 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

Farmood Ali Vs R.k. Kunwar

Kewala Nand Pathak Vs Pankaj Tiwari

Vijay Kumar Chauhan Vs Uttaranchal Power Corporation Ltd. Kathgodam Nainital

Sarita Devi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Wazir Ali Vs State of Uttarakhand

Buddhi Singh Miyyan Vs Union of India