Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1794/2018 on 2 August, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
SL. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No. 1794 of 2018
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
(Through Hybrid Mode)
Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. Rakesh Kunwar, Addl. C.S.C. for the
State of Uttarakhand.
A very short controversy, which has been
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in
the present Writ Petition, while giving a challenge
to the action taken by the respondents, against the
petitioner, as a consequence of the passing of the
impugned orders dated 25th Aril, 2016, 3rd March,
2017, 15th November, 2017 and 24th March, 2018,
wherein, in fact, if the action, which has been
taken, it is alleged to be on the basis of the
inspection, which was conducted in pursuance of
the impugned orders resulting to the culmination
of the proceedings of the Mining Case No. 52/74
of 2015, State Vs. Prakash Chandra Bhatt, and
subsequent thereto in the Mining Appeal No. 33 of
2016-17, Prakash Chandra Bhatt Vs. State, as
well as the Mining Revision thereafter.
The sole argument of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the very foundation of the
passing of the impugned order is based upon the
inspection, which was conducted by the Revenue
Sub Inspector, who would not be the competent
authority to conduct the inspection in accordance
with Rule 13 of the Rules, called as Uttaranchal
Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining,
Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2005.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has
drawn the attention of this Court, particularly to
the provisions contained under Rule 13 (1), where
for the purposes of conducting the inspection for
any act of illegality under the Act, in the conduct
of the mining activities under the Rules of 2005,
the inspection is contemplated to be conducted by
the Prescribed Authority and, as per the Rules
provided therein, the Revenue Sub Inspector, who
has conducted the inspection and had submitted his
report, in the instant case, will not fall to be within
the competent authority as defined and provided
under Rule 13 (1) of Rules of 2005, and hence, it is
argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the entire action, the basis of which, was the
inspection report submitted by the Revenue Sub
Inspector, when it runs contrary to the Rules 13
(1), which creates an embargo by the Officer
authorise to conduct the inspection by the District
Magistrate, cannot be an Officer below the rank of
Sub Divisional Magistrate. On that limited count
itself, the entire proceedings held against the
petitioner would be vitiated and in support thereto,
the learned counsel for the petitioner, has made
reference to the judgment rendered by this Court
on 3rd April, 2019, with the leading Writ Petition
(M/S) No. 802 of 2018, Dev Bhoomi Stone
Crusher Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others,
wherein, this aspect about the implications of Rule
13 (1) has been taken into consideration and
holding thereof that the Officer competent, to hold
the inspection, should not be an Officer below the
rank of Sub Inspector as it has been provided
under Rule 13 (1). Since in the present case as per
the stand taken by the Addl. C.S.C., admittedly,
the inspection was conducted by the Revenue Sub
Inspector, who would not be the competent
authority, the subsequent actions taken would be
vitiated.
In that eventuality, this Writ Petition is
allowed. The impugned orders are quashed,
subject to the directions which had already been
given in the judgment, relied by the learned
counsel for the petitioner dated 3rd April, 2019, but
allowing of the Writ Petition will not preclude the
respondents to initiate the proceedings afresh, but
after due compliance of the implications of the
Rules 13 (1), as it has been directed by the
judgment rendered by this Court.
Subject to the above observations and
directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 02.08.2021
Shiv
