Uttarakhand High Court
Alok Dwivedi vs District Magistrate Haridwar & ... on 28 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 206 of 2021
Alok Dwivedi .....Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate Haridwar & another
......Respondents
Mr. U.K. Uniyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.
Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Dated: 28th January, 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
For the purpose of enforcement of his rights for
extracting riverbed material, under the Uttarakhand
River Training Policy 2016, the petitioner had earlier
approached the Writ Court, by way of filing Writ
Petition (M/S) No. 1874 of 2018, "Alok Dwivedi v.
State of Uttarakhand & others".
2. For the reasons, which had been given by the
learned Single Judge in para 2 of the said judgment,
the writ petition was dismissed by the judgment
dated 10.07.2018 on the ground that the temporary
stoppage of work of extraction of RBM material the
responsibility of it was to be absolutely shouldered by
the petitioner himself.
3. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned
Single Judge, the special appeal being Special Appeal
No. 540 of 2018, was preferred by the petitioner,
before the Division Bench, and the Division Bench
while allowing the special appeal had directed the
petitioner to extract the RBM w.e.f. 13.08.2018 for
seven days, as per the terms of the work order,
which was executed in his favour on 13.06.2018. As
far as the judgments of the learned Single Judge
dated 10.07.2018 and the judgment of the Division
Bench dated 08.08.2018 is concerned, that has
attained finality. Despite of the liberty being granted
by the Division Bench, no extraction of RBM, as was
directed therein has been made by the petitioner.
Hence, now the writ petition in 2021, for the following
reliefs:-
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to permit the petition to remove
the remaining quantity of the minor
minerals/R.B.M. from the area auctioned in
favour of the petitioner vide order dated
13.06.2018 in Village- Rasulpur Meethiberi,
District Haridwar.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of Mandamus directing the District
Magistrate Haridwar to take a decision on
the report dated 22.02.2020 submitted by
the respondent no. 2 to the respondent no.
1."
4. Considering the nature of relief and the
manner in which it had been modulated praying for a
writ of mandamus by way of a permission to extract
the RBM in pursuance to the order dated 13.06.2018,
which itself was already earlier considered by the
Division Bench in its judgment dated 08.08.2018, no
writ of mandamus would be issued as of now. For the
reason being that it would amount to be an
invocation of a writ petition, consecutively by filing a
second writ petition, for the same cause of action,
which already stood adjudicated earlier by the
learned Single Judge and later on by the Division
Bench too. The reference to the report which has
been made by the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner dated 22.02.2020 and I am, yet again
constrained to not to accept the argument in relation
thereto, for the reasons being that it was a privileged
communication between the office of the District
Magistrate to the Deputy Director Geology
Department, which was submitted by way of a report
and that too way back on 20.02.2020. This report
was not for the purposes of consumption or creation
of right, for petitioner to establish his case for filing a
subsequent writ petition.
5. Since the rights have already been determined
and crystallized, by the earlier Division Bench's
judgment, I hold that this is a second writ petition
and I declined to exercise my jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The same is
accordingly dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Vacation Judge
28.01.2021
AK/SB
