[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
April 15 vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors on 15 April, 2026
2026:UHC:2644-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Writ Petition (M/B) No.214 of 2026
April 15, 2026
Rajesh Mehta ----Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. ----Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner
Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Additional C.S.C. with Mr. Mohinder Singh Bisht, learned
Brief Holder for the State.
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed assailing an
order dated 31.12.2025 passed by respondent no.3 herein
i.e. Directorate of Geology and Mining Uttarakhand,
Bhopalpani, Raipur Thano Airport Motor Road, Dehradun
through its Director General in compliance of order dated
19.11.2025 in WPMB No.988/2025. The said writ petition was
filed by the petitioner herein alleging that although he ceased
to be a partner in the firm respondent no.4-M/s Shiva Stone
Crusher but his name was continued to be shown as a
partner.
2026:UHC:2644-DB
3. The admitted facts are that there was a limited
liability partnership firm in the name of respondent no.4. It
was constituted in the year 2018 for carrying on business of
stone crusher. It constituted of: (i) Rajeev Goyal (ii) Baldev
Raj (iii) Sanjeev Kumar Sukhija, and (iv) petitioner herein.
The said firm was granted permission to run a stone crusher
on 30.07.2018 and permission for storage on 04.01.2019. On
26.09.2018, a supplementary deed of partnership came into
existence, whereby one of the partners retired from the firm.
On 20.05.2019, the firm was again reconstituted and thereby
the petitioner herein retired from the firm. The firm was yet
again reconstituted on 16.04.2021 and one new partner,
namely, Karan Goyal was inducted in the firm.
4. It appears that the license of the stone crusher was
expiring and therefore an application for its renewal was filed
by the firm. On 07.07.2023, the department submitted a
proposal for renewal of the license for another period of 10
years subject to the final outcome of a pending public interest
litigation (WPPIL No.210/2021 "Prem Singh Rawat vs.
Uttarakhand State and another"). On basis of the said
proposal, the State Government issued an office order dated
20.09.2023 renewing license of the firm for a further period
of 10 years. It appears that on basis of the said order, when
the renewal order was issued, inadvertently name of the
original partners came to be mentioned. The petitioner,
2026:UHC:2644-DB
having come to know of the same, filed applications before
the Department, for cancelling the license of the firm, as his
name was wrongly used by the firm. Thereafter, the
petitioner preferred WPMB No.988/2025 and in which order
dated 19.11.2025 was passed for deciding the representation
of the petitioner.
5. In compliance of the order of this Court, the
representation has now been decided by the impugned order.
The impugned order recites that the petitioner was duly
intimated of the date fixed for hearing by sending a notice on
his residential address. The process server was intimated by
mother of the petitioner that the petitioner was not available
at that time and she refused to accept the notice and
consequently the process server left the notice at the house
of the petitioner. The order further recites that on basis of the
original partnership deed dated 28.02.2018 the license for
stone crusher was granted on 20.06.2018, however, at the
time of renewal, by inadvertence, notice of the amended
partnership deeds, supplementary deeds/retirement deeds
could not be taken and proposal was sent to the Government
for renewal of lease in the name of the firm. The office order
issued by the Government on 20.09.2023 only mentioned the
name of the firm and not its partners. Therefore,
inadvertently, while issuing the renewal order, the name of
the original partners came to be mentioned. The said mistake
2026:UHC:2644-DB
has already been corrected by office order no.2857 dated
18.08.2025 and now the name of the existing partners of the
firm have been duly endorsed on the license. It is also
categorically recorded in the order that as a result of the said
mistake no monetary loss has been suffered by the
Government nor any financial loss has resulted to the
petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute
that the mistake committed while renewing the license stands
corrected by office order dated 18.08.2025; in fact copy of
the said order has not been annexed by the petitioner and it
appears that even while filing the previous writ petition the
said order was not annexed by him.
7. On a query made to learned counsel for the
petitioner as how the petitioner still feels aggrieved, he
submits that the petitioner has been issued a notice on
12.08.2024 by CGST Department for the tax recoverable
from the firm M/s Shiva Stone Crusher.
8. It has already come in the impugned order that the
present partners of the firm have accepted all the liabilities
towards the firm. The impugned order also clarifies the
aspect that the petitioner's name was inadvertently included
in the license and the said mistake already stands corrected.
The impugned order therefore would in fact be a valid
2026:UHC:2644-DB
defence for the petitioner in response to the show cause
notice to dispute his alleged liability towards the dues of the
firm. It is always open to the petitioner to respond to the said
notice and demonstrate before the authorities that his name
was wrongly included in the license at the time of its renewal
and the business was in fact being run by the present
partners.
9. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, we find no
good ground to interfere with the impugned order or to direct
cancellation of the renewal permission in favour of the firm.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
10. No order as to costs.
11. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed
of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated: 15.04.2026
Rajni
RAJINI
GUSAIN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b87
GUSAI
6db48448ac3701a9ae475a2547
e4b7f1d9b1f17d01342,
postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A
N
2222B4DF4FC80D4557562F95B
EBA013F530616A158A0A878BD
8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN
Date: 2026.04.16 10:11:15
+05'30'
