Nathu Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 1881 ALL

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 1881 ALL
Judgement Date : 23 May, 2011

Allahabad High Court

Nathu Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 23 May, 2011

Bench: Satya Poot Mehrotra, Rajesh Chandra




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 36
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29835 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Nathu Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- B.N. Agrawal,Sanjay Agrawal
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.

Hon'ble Rajesh Chandra,J.

The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for quashing the Order dated 9th May, 2011 (Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition).

It appears that the petitioner was granted mining lease in respect of the area in question by the Lease Deed dated 8th January, 2010 (Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition).

By the impugned Order dated 9th May, 2011, the petitioner has been directed to stop mining operation on the ground that the petitioner is doing mining work without taking consent of the owner of the land in question. The impugned order has further directed the petitioner to pay compensation on the basis of mutual agreement and produce consent letter within a month.

We have considered the submissions made by Shri B.N. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.

Rule 77 of the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 ( in short "Rules, 1963") provides that in case any party is aggrieved by an order passed under the said Rule by the District Officer, i.e., District Magistrate, such party may file Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner within the time mentioned in the said Rule.

In view of the aforesaid Rule, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner against the impugned order dated 9th May, 2011.

In view of the availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner under the aforesaid Rule, we are not inclined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the present case.

The Writ Petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner to file Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner.

Order Date :- 23.5.2011