Pet it ioner v. St at e of Ut t arakhand ot hers

pet it ioner in t he nam e of t he “ propriet ary firm ” had preferred an earlier writ pet it ion regist ered as Writ Pet it ion 2 ( M/ S) No. 2508 of 2022, and in t he said writ pet it ion t he pet it ioner has sought following reliefs : i) I ssue a writ , order or direct ion in t he nat ur e of m andam us, com m anding / direct ing t he r espondent no. 3 t o dem ar cat e t he m ining area by fixing t he pillars m ent ioned in t he e- t ender , i.e. 32 hect ares and t her eaft er per m it t he pet it ioner t o excavat e t he m inor m inerals as per t he e- t ender and M.O.U. execut ed bet ween t he part ies and in furt herance t her eof. OR I N ALTERNATI VE I I ) I ssue a writ , order or direct ion in t he nat ur e of m andam us com m anding / direct ing t he r espondent no. 3 t o pay an am ount of Rs.94,23,750 + 1,88,74,500 + 73,29,584 t ot al am ount Rs.3,56,27,834/ - t o t he pet it ioner m inus m inor m iner als excav at ed by t he pet it ioner from Oct ober 2021 t o Decem ber 2021 along wit h int erest from t he dat e of m aking t he pay m ent by t he pet it ioner t o t he r espondent no. 3. iii) I ssue a writ , order or direct ion in t he nat ur e of m andam us com m anding / dir ect ing an inquiry against t he concerned official of Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Lt d. and Depart m ent of Geology & Mining, Ut t arakhand for com m it t ing fraud against t he pet it ioner.” 4) The inst ant pet it ion is preferred in t he personal nam e of t he propriet or. 3 5) The fact s, in brief, are t hat t he t hird respondent issued a publicat ion invit ing bids for allot m ent of a m ining lot No. 14/ 8, m easuring 32 Hect ares, wit h t he proposed quant it y of 3,00,000 t ons of m inor m ineral. That t he invit at ion for bids was in capacit y of “ a cont ract or” t o excavat e and t ransport t he m ineral. The pet it ioner was declared t he highest bidder for a t ender am ount of Rs.7,53,90,000/ - . That pursuant t o t he declarat ion of pet it ioner as highest bidder, t he t hird respondent vide let t er dat ed 20.11.2020, direct ed t he pet it ioner t o deposit cert ain am ount s as a first inst allm ent and anot her am ount as t he secondary deposit . The said am ount s cam e t o be deposit ed on 23.11.2020, and a Mem orandum of Underst anding was execut ed bet ween t he t hird respondent and t he pet it ioner, and t he work order dat ed

07.10.2021 cam e t o be issued. The work order was issued aft er a gap of about a year and t he am ount s deposit ed by t he pet it ioner rem ained non- rem unerat ive and t hus depriving him of t he fruit s of his invest m ent . That one of t he reasons for t he non- com m encem ent of t he work was t he lack of environm ent al sanct ion, and it is his cont ent ion t hat t he t hird respondent , in absence of such a sanct ion, had no right t o issue such an advert isem ent calling for bids t o excavat e t he m ineral from t he m ining 4 lot No. 14/ 8. Despit e t his inherent lack of legal sanct ion, which goes t o t he root of t he m at t er, t he pet it ioner claim s t hat he has worked t he area for som e t im e and, t hereaft er, it appears t hat t he St at e by it s proceedings dat ed 12.01.2024 was pleased t o direct t he surrender of t he m ining lot allot t ed t o t he t hird respondent . Aggrieved, t he pet it ioner inst it ut ed Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 2508 of 2022, and a co- ordinat e bench, headed by t he t hen Hon’ble Chief Just ice, aft er appreciat ing t he fact s, and t he various cont ent ions raised, was pleased t o hold in Para 5, as under: “ 5. A per usal of t he pet it ion show s t hat t he nat ur e of disput es raised in t he writ pet it ion would r equire det erm inat ion of fact s about w hich t her e m ay be cont rover sy. Since t he pet it ioner has ent ered int o an agreem ent which cont ains arbit rat ion clause as well, we are not inclined t o ent ert ain t he present writ pet it ion. We dism iss t he sam e, leaving it open t o t he pet it ioner t o avail of it s rem edies under t he arbit rat ion agreem ent . We hav e not exam ined t he m erit s of t he disput e raised by t he pet it ioner.” Consequent ly, t he co- ordinat e bench was pleased t o dism iss t he writ pet it ion by reserving libert y t o t he pet it ioner t o seek for rem edies in t erm s of t he MOU, and m ore part icularly, t he arbit rat ion clause incorporat ed in t he MOU. 5 6) The order cam e t o be passed on 20.10.2022. Aft er t he passage of a couple of years, t he present writ pet it ion is preferred and is sought t o be filed in t he individual nam e of t he propriet or, while t he earlier round of lit igat ion was init iat ed in t he nam e of t he propriet ary concern/ firm it self. 7) Be t hat as it m ay, we have called upon t he counsel t o sat isfy t his Court regarding t he m aint ainabilit y of t he relief sought . The first prayer is for cancellat ion of t he order direct ing surrender of t he m ining lease allot t ed by t he Governm ent in favour of t he t hird respondent which is a local aut horit y, and pursuant t o which t he t hird respondent has surrendered t he m ining lot . The pet it ioner is neit her a lessee, nor a sub- lessee, nor an applicant over t he m ining area ident ified as m ining lot No. 14/ 8 sit uat ed at Asan, Tehsil Vikasnagar, Dist rict Dehradun. The Minor Minerals ( Concession) Rules prescribe a part icular m ode and m et hod for grant of t he m ining right s, or m ining leases. The fact t hat t he pet it ioner is not even an applicant is not denied. The fact t hat he is engaged as a m ere cont ract or t o carry out t he excavat ion work is also in disput e. Despit e t hese adm it t ed fact s, t he pet it ioner has sought t o im pugn t he proceedings, direct ing t he t hird respondent t o surrender t he m ining lot . That t he 6 pet it ioner being neit her an allot t ee, nor a lessee, t he quest ion of im pugning t he direct ion t o a lessee t o surrender a m ining lease, in our considered opinion, is wit hout any basis. 8) That apart , t he next prayer t o allot t he m ining lease in lieu of t he deposit s m ade by him before t he t hird part y as t he t hird respondent in t he absence of an applicat ion, in our considered opinion, is wholly unsust ainable and is cont rary t o t he provisions of t he Minor Minerals ( Concession) Rules. That apart , som e of t he reliefs sought are a repeat of t he reliefs sought on t he earlier occasion, and t he reliefs sought in t he inst ant writ pet it ion are adm it t edly prem ised on t he sam e cause of act ion which in our opinion is a clear case of abuse of t he process of t he court . 9) I n t hat view of t he m at t er, filing of t he inst ant writ pet it ion wit hout disclosing earlier round of lit igat ion, in our considered opinion, is an at t em pt t o pract ice fraud on t he Court . 10) I n t hat view of t he m at t er, we are of t he considered opinion t hat t he inst ant writ pet it ion is wholly unsust ainable and requires t o be rej ect ed and is, accordingly, rej ect ed wit h exem plary cost quant ified at 7 Rs.5,00,000/ - ( rupees five lakhs only) t o be deposit ed by t he pet it ioner wit hin a period of t wo weeks from t he dat e of receipt of a cert ified copy of t his order. Cost shall be deposit ed int o t he account of t he Ut t arakhand High Court Advocat es Associat ion Fund. I n t he event t he am ount is not deposit ed wit hin t he st ipulat ed t im e, t he Regist rar General shall t ake st eps t o recover t he sam e. ________________ G. N A REN D A R, C.J. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A LOK M A H RA , J. Dt : 06 t h MAY, 2025 Negi HIMANS HU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13aaf1 16e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC51 A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18DB 2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI 8