[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
9 March vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 9 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1460-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.131 of 2026
9 March, 2026
Nishant Singh @ Nishan Singh --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Pankaj Miglani and Mr. Pulak Agarwal, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, learned Addl. C.S.C. and Mr. Yogesh
Chandra Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarkhand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.)
1. The present writ petition has been filed
assailing the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by learned
Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital in Misc. Appeal
No. 28 of 2023 whereby the application under Section 5
of the Limitation Act filed along with the memo of appeal
has been dismissed and as a consequence thereof the
appeal also stood dismissed.
2. The petitioner has also assailed the order of
Additional Collector/ Additional District Magistrate dated
09.06.2023 in Case No.51/47/2017 (Old Case No.51/106
of 2016), "State Vs. Nishant Singh @ Nishan Singh".
2026:UHC:1460-DB
3. The appeal was filed under Rule 77 of the Uttar
Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 against
the order of the Additional Collector dated 09.06.2023.
The appellate authority has observed that although the
appellant alleged that he was not served with copy of the
order of the Additional Collector and it was only after
some time when he made inquiry, he came to know of it
but since the date on which the order came to his
knowledge was not disclosed, therefore, the explanation
given is not acceptable.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the Additional Collector has taken a highly technical view
in rejecting the delay condonation application. He
submits that since valuable rights of the petitioner are
involved and, therefore, a liberal view should have been
taken while considering the delay condonation
application.
5. We have gone through the order of the
Additional Collector and we also find that the delay
condonation application has been rejected solely on the
ground that date of knowledge of the order against which
appeal was filed was not specifically disclosed though
adequate reasons were given for the delay in filing the
appeal.
2026:UHC:1460-DB
6. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances
of the present case, the appellate authority was not right
in taking a technical view and should have decided the
appeal on merits. Learned State Counsel also does not
seriously oppose the hearing of the appeal by the
appellate authority on merits.
7. Accordingly, the order of the appellate
authority dated 28.11.2024 is hereby quashed. The
matter is remitted back to the appellate authority for
deciding the appeal on merits.
8. The petitioner shall file a copy of the instant
order before the appellate authority within four weeks
from today, failing which, the instant order would
automatically lapse and the writ petition would stand
dismissed.
9. Pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated: 09.03.2026
SS
SUKHBANT
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a8a6380d49b1
SINGH
885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7D72C422613
61AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH
Date: 2026.03.10 10:17:06 +05'30'
