Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ram Samujh v. State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Bhutatva Evam Khanikar & 3 Ors. - MISC. BENCH No. - 7231 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 16044 (26 September 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4 and caveator namely, Sri Nanu Verma through learned Counsel Sri L.B.Khan.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2007 (anneuxre No.1 to the writ petition) passed by Additional District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar whereby he has recalled his earlier orders dated 12.09.2007 and 15.09.2007 and directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to lifting of sand.

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was granted sand mining lease for a period of three years under the provision of Chapter II of the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concessions) Rules 1963. Upon a complaint made by one Sri Nanu Verma, Caveator, a report dated 26.05.2007 was submitted by the Mining Inspector stating therein that the storage of sand made by the petitioner on plot No.43 of the village was against the provision of Uttar Pradesh Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules 2002 inasmuch as he has not obtained any storage licence under the said Rules, although his application for the said license is still pending. The petitioner made an application to the District Magistrate who passed an order dated 10.09.2007 whereby he found that the quantity of sand stored on the plot in question was 2131 metric tonnes whereas the petitioner had claimed to have only 400 metric tonnes of sand. Consequently, the District Magistrate had directed that the petitioner may lift 400 metric tonnes of sand upon his payment of compounding charges of Rs. 25,000/-. The petitioner alleges to have deposited the compounding charges of Rs.25,000/- and therefore, contends that the Additional District Magistrate could not have passed the impugned order preventing the petitioner from lifting the said sand, particularly when he has been permitted by an order dated 10.09.2007 passed by the District Magistrate.

Learned counsel for the caveator on the other hand has objected to the order of District Magistrate by saying that the petitioner has been indulging in illegal mining and therefore, his licence requires to be cancelled.

Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that in view of the order dated 12.09.2007 as contained in annexure No.10 to the writ petition, it is quite apparent that 400 metric tonnes of sand out of 2131 metric tonnes has been compounded and petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compounding charges there against and the District Magistrate by an order dated 10.09.2007 has permitted the petitioner to lift 400 metric tonnes of sand. However, his contention is that in case petitioner has been found to have done illegal mining of sand his license is liable to be cancelled or penalty may be imposed upon him in accordance with law .

Having considered the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties, we find that by the order dated 10.09.2007, the District Magistrate has compounded 400 metric tonnes of sand and the petitioner has deposited Rs. 25,000/- as compounding charges. Hence it was not open for the Additional District Magistrate to pass impugned order dated 19.09.2007 asking the parties to maintain staus quo and preventing the petitioner from lifting 400 metric tonnes of sand. So far as the violation of terms and condition of licence or the Rules by the petitioner is concerned, the same is not subject matter of this writ petition and therefore, it is left open to parties to proceed in accordance with law. However, the 400 metric tonnes of sand for which the petitioner has already paid compounded fees is liable to be released and it is ordered thus. The application of the petitioner for grant of storage licence under the Rules is alleged to be pending which should also be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably, within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced by the petitioner

It is made clear that the additional sand lying on the spot is yet to be decided by the authority hence, no orders can be passed by this Court in this petition.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stand finally disposed of. No order is passed as to costs.


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.