Shri Mohamad Ali vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Geology ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 12578 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30937 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Shri Mohamad Ali
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Geology And Mining Lko. And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pushpila Bisht,Himanshu Bora
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.

Heard Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Javendra and Sri Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel.

Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.11.2021 passed by the respondent no.1 in Revision No.93(R)/SM/2021.

Facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted a mining lease under Rule 23 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 through e-auction by Government Order dated 14.08.2017 and the same was run for a period of three years and thereafter a notice was given by the respondents and mining of the petitioner was stopped w.e.f. 14.01.2021. The petitioner submitted his reply to the notice and the same was followed by repeated notices and replies. Ultimately, an order of termination of mining was passed on 12.7.2021, however the petitioner was made liable, say, till the date of passing of the termination order. The petitioner filed a revision against the same and in Paragraph 30 of the revision, he specifically pleaded that his matter is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Vipul Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. & others (Writ 'C' No.17258 of 2020) along with connected Writ 'C' No.16799 of 2020, dated 11.01.2021, however, without taking into consideration the law settled by the said judgment, the revisional authority has decided the revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court to the entire order passed by the revisional authority. A perusal of the impugned revisional order dated 18.11.2021, shows that it is absolutely with regard to specific ground raised by the petitioner as settled by this Court.

Learned Standing Counsel could not show that the said aspect of the matter or the law settled by this Court is considered by the revisional authority; though it was incumbent upon the revisional authority to consider the law placed before it while deciding the revision.

In view thereof, the impugned order dated 18.11.2021, cannot stand and is set aside.

The matter is remanded back to the revisional authority to pass a fresh order within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the revisional authority.

The demand against the petitioner shall abide by the result of the revision.

The writ petition is allowed.

(Vivek Chaudhary,J.)

Order Date :- 24.4.2023

Arjun/-