Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/347/2022 on 8 March, 2022
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No. 347 of 2022
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel, for the
State of Uttarakhand.
The petitioner in the present Writ Petition
had put a challenge to the order dated 7th December,
2022, as it has been passed by respondent No. 2, in
Case No. 50/93 of 2017, State of Uttarakhand Vs.
Parle G. Pvt. Company, which were the
proceedings, which were conducted under the
Uttarakhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining,
Transportation and Storage) Rules 2005. These
Rules were later on amended in 2015.
The sole reason, which the learned counsel
for the petitioner has argued, that why he had
approached the Writ Court, as against the order
passed by A.D.M. is with regard to the contents of
the notice, which was issued to him while initiating
the proceedings under the Rules of 2005, in fact, in
principle, there is no challenge given to the
authority of competence of the officer, who had
issued the notices, it's not the case that he was not
competent to issue it, but rather the petitioner had
argued it from the perspective, that the notice
suffers from an apparent defect because the
inspection was conducted as against, for example,
"A" company and the notice was issued to the
petitioner, for example, "B" company, and also
further from the pretext that the notice, where the
inspection was said to have been conducted at "A"
place and it has been made applicable to the
petitioner at "B" place.
This Court is of the view, that these
veracities of the contents of the notice itself, which
was a subject matter of consideration before the
Additional District Magistrate, who had decided the
matter against the petitioner by the impugned order,
would be a subject matter, which could be
scrutinized before the Appellate Forum, which has
been provided under Rule 15 of the Rules of 2005,
which had been framed under Section 23-C of
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development,
Act 1957.
In that eventuality, all the contentions of the
petitioner pertaining to the propriety of the contents
of the notice, would always be a subject matter to
be scrutinized before the Appellate Forum, which
has been provided under the Rules of 2005, as
contained under Rule 15.
In that eventuality, the petitioner has got a
statutory remedy of preferring of an Appeal.
While dismissing this Writ Petition, directing
the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum by
filing an Appeal under Rule 15 of the Rules, it is
hereby observed as under :-
1. If the appeal is preferred by the petitioner
within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of the certified copy of this judgment,
the Appellate Authority would rationally
consider the implications of Section 5 to be
read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
2. If the appeal of the petitioner is accompanied
with an application for the grant of any
interim protection during the pendency of the
appeal, which is obviously a continuation of
the proceedings, which had been held under
the statute, the Appellate Authority would
consider the interim application and pass an
appropriate order within a period of one
month from the date of its filing, exclusively
in accordance with law.
3. Till any order is passed on the petitioner's
interim application, as directed above, to be
preferred before the Appellate Authority, no
coercive action in pursuance to the impugned
order, which is under challenge before this
Court would be taken against the petitioner.
4. The decision on the Appeal, if any, if the
petitioner invokes a forum questioning the
appellate judgement, it would not create any
impediment for the petitioner to put a
challenge of the order of the A.D.M. Udham
Singh Nagar dated 17th December 2021, too
in any subsequent proceedings after the
appellate order.
Subject to the aforesaid exceptions, the Writ
Petition stands dismissed on the ground of
availability of statutory remedy.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 08.03.2022
Shiv
