1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

M/S Hindustan Construction Company vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|13 August, 2019
Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26404 of 2019 Petitioner :- M/S. Hindustan Construction Company Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yash Tandon Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the prayer inter-alia to issue a mandamus directing the respondent no.1, i.e. revisional authority to decide the Revision No.99(R)/2019 in reference M/s. Hindustan Construction Company Vs. District Magistrate, Balia & another filed by the petitioner under Rule 78 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 within a specified time and till disposal of the aforesaid revision no recovery may be made against the petitioner in pursuance to the order dated 10.07.2019, passed by District Magistrate, Ballia.
The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that e- tenders were invited for the grant of mining lease by the District Magistrate, Ballia vide notification dated 14.9.2017. The petitioner duly participated in the same. His bid amount was highest as such a letter of intent was issued in his favour on 29.11.2017 granting him mining lease in respect of Arazi No.593, area 11.90 hectares situated in Village- Khairakhas, Tehsil Belthara Road, District Ballia. When certain instalments were not paid by the petitioner notices were issued to him and ultimately vide order dated 10.7.2019 District Magistrate, Ballia/respondent no.2 cancelled the mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner and directions were given to recover the amount of Rs.2,39,39,600/-. A recovery certificate dated 10.7.2019 was also issued to the petitioner whereby the proceedings for recovery were initiated. Challenging the aforesaid order petitioner preferred a revision before the State Government as provided under Rule 78 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. Along-with the memo of appeal an application for grant of interim relief was also filed by the petitioner, copy of memo of revision along-with the application for interim relief is appended as annexure 14 to the writ petition.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the statutory revision preferred by the petitioner is still pending consideration before the State Government. It is further contended that no order whatsoever has been passed till date on the aforesaid revision for grant of interim relief in favour of the petitioner. In view of the same it is contended that once the revision filed by the petitioner is pending no demand could be raised as the provision of revision would be redundant.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
No useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending hence with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
Since the revision preferred by the petitioner is pending we propose to interfere with the matter to the extent that the respondent no.1 be directed to decide the stay application submitted by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
In the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh application along- with certified copy of this order before the respondent no.1 within a period of two weeks from today. If such an application is made, respondent no.1 is directed to pass appropriate orders on the interim relief application within a period of six weeks.
It is further provided that for a period of two months or till the disposal of the stay application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.
It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case and thus it is for authority concerned to take a decision independently in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 13.8.2019 Pramod Tripathi
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
  • Bala Krishna Narayana
  • Yash Tandon