Ms Galffar Engineering And Contracting ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 10 July, 2017

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

Ms Galffar Engineering And Contracting ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 10 July, 2017

Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                        Writ Petition (M/S) No. 73 of 2016


M/s Galffar Engineering and Contracting India Private Limited.
                                                                        ..............Petitioner


                                             Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others                                            .......Respondents

Present:- Mr. M.S. Rawat, Advocate holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for the petitioner.
           Mr. P.C. Bisht, Standing Counsel, for the State/respondent Nos.1 to 4.



Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

The order dated 27.01.2015 evidently has been passed by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar under the Uttaranchal Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2005, which is being challenged by the petitioner before this Court by means of the present writ petition.

2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned State Counsel that under Rule 15 of the Uttaranchal Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2005, an appeal is provided before the State Government. Rule 15 of the Uttaranchal Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2005 reads as under:-

"15. Any person, aggrieved by any order made by the district officer or the officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf, in exercise of the powers conferred upon by these rules-

(a) may appeal to the State Government in Form 'M' within ninety days of the date of communication of the order.

(b) every appeal shall be accompanied with a fee of Rs.500 to be deposited under the head and manner as the State Government may, by order, specify, 2

(c) the State Government may confirm, modify or set aside the order appealed as it may deem fit and proper."

3. Since the petitioner has not exhausted his remedy before the State Government, the writ petition stands dismissed on ground of alternative remedy.

4. The petitioner would always be at liberty to approach the State Government and in case the petitioner moves an appeal before the State Government, the authorities shall consider condonation of delay in filing the appeal sympathetically keeping in view that the petition remained pending before this Court during this period.

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 10.07.2017 Nitesh/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Uttarakhand High Court