WPMS/324/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 382 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                       AT NAINITAL
     ON THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
                              BEFORE:
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


     WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 324 of 2022


BETWEEN:
     Deepak Pokhriyal.                                    ........Petitioner
     (By Mr. Nalin Saun, Advocate)


AND:
     State of Uttarakhand & others.                       ...Respondents
     (By Mr. Shailendra Singh Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. N.S.
     Kanyal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand)



                               JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed by Mr. Deepak Pokhriyal, who claims to be Manager of Stone Crusher/Screening Plant at Khankriyo (Kandoli), Patti Chalansyun, District Pauri Garhwal.

3. According to the petition, respondent no. 5 had entered into an agreement with the petitioner to supply mining material to be used as raw-material in the stone crusher, as respondent no. 5 has been granted mining lease by the State Government.

4. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondent no. 5 is not supplying mining material in terms of the agreement.

5. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

I. To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 5/mining lease-holder to supply the agreed amount of mining material to the petitioner as per the registered agreement dated 12.02.2020 executed in compliance of Schedule 3, Chapter 1 Point 2 (15) of Uttarakhand Stone Crusher, Screening Plant, Mobile Stone Crusher, Mobile Screening Plant, Pulveriser Plant, Hot Mix Plant, Ready-mix Plant Permission Policy, 2019.

II. To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 5/mining lease-holder to compensate the petitioner for the time duration during which the registered agreement dated 12.02.2020 was not respected."

6. Since petitioner has raised a private dispute, namely, non-supply of mining material, in terms of the agreement, therefore, this Court cannot grant the relief, as claimed in the writ petition.

7. Since the dispute arises out of a contract, which can be enforced through a Competent Civil Court.

8. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Navin