Disposed

Rajesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC3 Jun 2024WPMS/683/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking execution of a supplementary lease deed and unhindered mining after a mining lease transfer was allowed. The State said a District Magistrate report on complaints was awaited; petitioners said it had been filed. The court directed the Secretary, Industrial Development, to decide the matter within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Secretary, Industrial Development Department to take decision on execution of supplementary lease deed within eight weeks.

SL.
No

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

WPMS No. 683 of 2024
Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.

(1)
Ms.
Pushila
Bisht
&
Ms.
Menka
Tripathi, Advocates for the petitioners.

(2)
Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing
Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

(3)
By
means
of
this
writ
petition,
petitioners
have
sought
the
following
reliefs: -

(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to
sign, execute and allow registration of the
supplementary lease deed in favour of the
petitioner no. 1 within a stipulated period of
time.
(ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding respondents to allow
the petitioner no. 1 to undertake mining activity
in his own name without any hindrance being
caused by the respondents.
(4)
In sum and substance, case of the
petitioners is that petitioner no. 2 was
granted
a
mining
lease
by
the
State
Government on 18.09.2021. Subsequently,
a joint application was made by both the
petitioners seeking permission for transfer
of the mining lease in favour of petitioner
no. 1. The said application is said to be
allowed vide order dated 22.12.2023.

(5)
According
to
the
petitioners,
a
supplementary
lease
deed
has
to
be
executed between State Government and
petitioner
no.
1.
Before
executing
supplementary lease deed, ‘No Objection
Certificate’
was
called
from
concerned
Agencies. Even after grant of No Objection
Certificate
by
the
concerned
Agencies,

supplementary lease deed has not been
executed. This according to petitioners is arbitrary and unjust.
(6) A counter affidavit has been filed by Mr. Laxman Singh, Additional Secretary, Industrial Development (Mining), Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. Learned State Counsel has referred to para 7 of the said counter affidavit for contending that complaints were received against the petitioners and a report was called from District Magistrate, Bageshwar, which is awaited.
(7) Learned counsel for petitioners, however, submits that District Magistrate has submitted his report to the State Government, thus, she submits that there is no justification for not executing supplementary lease deed in favour of petitioner no. 1.
(8) If what is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner is correct and the District Magistrate has submitted his report regarding complaints received against petitioners, then State Government is under a duty to take decision in the matter, one way or the other. (9) Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Secretary, Industrial Development Department to take decision regarding execution of supplementary lease deed, one way or the other, within eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Relevant provisions of law/ policy shall be borne in mind by the concerned Secretary, while taking the decision. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 03.06.2024 Aswal

supplementary lease deed has not been

executed. This according to petitioners is
arbitrary and unjust.

(6)
A counter affidavit has been filed by
Mr. Laxman Singh, Additional Secretary,
Industrial
Development
(Mining),
Government
of
Uttarakhand,
Dehradun.
Learned State Counsel has referred to para
7 of the said counter affidavit for contending
that complaints were received against the
petitioners and a report was called from
District Magistrate, Bageshwar, which is
awaited.

(7)
Learned
counsel
for
petitioners,
however, submits that District Magistrate
has submitted his report to the State
Government, thus, she submits that there is
no
justification
for
not
executing
supplementary lease deed in favour of
petitioner no. 1.

(8)
If what is stated by learned counsel for
the petitioner is correct and the District
Magistrate
has
submitted
his
report
regarding
complaints
received
against
petitioners, then State Government is under
a duty to take decision in the matter, one
way or the other.
(9)
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of
with a direction to Secretary, Industrial
Development Department to take decision
regarding execution of supplementary lease
deed, one way or the other, within eight
weeks from the date of production of
certified copy of this order. Relevant
provisions of law/ policy shall be borne in
mind by the concerned Secretary, while
taking the decision.
( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.)
03.06.2024
Aswal

Rajesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Verma 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

Narendra Dutt Vs Virendra Singh

Puran Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary

M/s Babaji Advertising Agency Adarsh Nagar Near Parwati Banquit Hall Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Local Bodies at Dehradun

District Committee, Center of Indian Trade Union Haridwar Vs Registrar Trade Unions / Labour Commissioner Uttarakhad

Abdul Javad Vs Director Rehabilitation/ District Magistrate Tehri Garhwal

Manju Devi Vs National Highway Authority of India