Ram Krishan vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3208 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Writ Petition (M/S) No.2787 of 2023

Ram Krishan                                        ....Petitioner

                                Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                       ....Respondents

Present:-
            Mr. Rahul Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. Anil Dabral, Additional C.S.C. for the State.

                             JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner

seeks quashing of a recovery citation with the directions to

the respondent no.2, the Commissioner, Kumaun Division,

Uttarakhand, to decide the appeal, filed by the petitioner, as

expeditiously as possible.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that under the

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957

("the Act") a penalty of Rs. 8,35,450/- was proposed on the

petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order imposing

penalty before the respondent no.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the appeal is yet pending disposal, but recovery citation

has been issued.

5. The Court had required learned State Counsel to

get instructions as to what is the status of the appeal that has

been preferred by the petitioner. Learned State Counsel gives

a statement that the date fixed in the appeal is 08.11.2023.

He would submit that on the last two occasions, it is the

petitioner who did not appear in the appeal.

6. The Court takes on record the statement given

by learned State Counsel.

7. The petitioner cannot, on the one hand, claim

before this Court that the appeal is pending, and, at the same

time, choose not appear at the time of hearing of the appeal.

8. Since the appeal is already pending, there is no

reason to make any interference. If the petitioner seeks stay of

the recovery, he can very well move an interim application in

the appeal. This Court has no doubt that if such an

application is moved, and argued on behalf of the petitioner,

an order, in accordance with law, would be passed even prior

to the date fixed. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be

dismissed.

9. The writ petition is dismissed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 18.10.2023 Ravi Bisht