High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to provide the details of actual amount of legal dues (if any) pending against petitioner within stipulated period of time. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to accept the required legal deposit and to issue appropriate challan receipt to petitioner as per law so that petitioner may run his brick kiln as per law. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to grant approval to petitioner for mining of clay for year 2024-25. (iv) Issue such other and further writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

3. It appears that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by means of Writ C No.37254 of 2024 which was disposed of by means of an order dated 17.01.2025. That order is quoted below:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:- (i) issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned recovery certificate dated 30.07.2021 issued by respondent no.3 (Annexure-1). (ii) issue such other and further writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notices which were sent to the petitioner, were never received by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore has submitted that, the respondents upon a presumption that the petitioner was running brick klin with 23 chimneys, were making the recovery. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has submitted that in fact there were only 12 chimneys which were being operated for the purposes of production of the bricks.

4. Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has, however, submitted that if the case of the petitioner is that no notices were served upon him, then the petitioner now has the knowledge of notice and he can go and reply to the same and the reply would thereafter be considered and the matter would be adjudicated upon.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, upon instructions from his client stated that the petitioner was ready and willing to deposit 50% of the amount which was payable under the recovery certificate.

6. Without going further into the details of the case, we provide that the first notice dated 13.03.2020 which was sent to the petitioner be now deemed to have been served upon it and it may now through its proprietor submit a reply to the notice dated 30.03.2020 within a period of fifteen days. However, the reply would be accepted only if the petitioner deposits 50% of the amount which was sought to be recovered within a period of fifteen days. The remaining amount which was sought to be recovered shall remain stayed till the decision is arrived at by the A.D.M./In-charge Mines, Muzaffar Nagar after the reply has been submitted by the petitioner.

7. We clarify that, if, the amount as has been promised to be paid by the petitioner is not deposited as per the undertaking given by it, then the State shall be free to recover the entire amount in accordance with law.

8. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out that pursuant to the aforesaid order by the Writ Court in the previous petition of the petitioner, whether the reply was submitted by the petitioner. Given the conditions mentioned in the paragraph no.6 of the order dated 17.01.2025, for want of enclosing the reply to the notice dated 13.03.2020 by the petitioner, a presumption can be drawn that the petitioner did not file any reply.

5. Now the petitioner has approached this Court by means of the instant writ petition seeking reliefs that are vague. It appears from the record that repeatedly notices have been sent to the petitioner on 23.08.2024 and 11.09.2024 but their compliance has not been made.

6. A perusal of the two notices dated 11.09.2024 that are collectively enclosed as Annexure no.6 to the writ petition reflect that previous two notices of 23.08.2024 were also issued to the petitioner asking it to demonstrate deposit of various charges for the financial year 2022-23 and 2023-24 failing which recovery proceedings would be initiated against it.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that three days' time was granted to the petitioner to comply with the aforesaid notices. It appears that the petitioner did not furnish the needful in compliance of the aforesaid notices dated 11.9.2024. It was by means of a representation dated 27.1.2025, which, as per the registered post receipt enclosed at the end of the representation, appears to have been dispatched on 28.2.2025, that the petitioner sought to address the concerns of the respondents which is reflected in the aforesaid notices dated 11.9.2024. This representation dated 27.1.2025 contains no enclosures. In the representation it is stated that for the year 2022-23 no approval was granted to the petitioner for mining of soil. It is stated that the petitioner repeatedly met the Mines Clerk in response to the notice dated 11.9.2024 who did not make the challan for deposit of the money; that the petitioner is ready to deposit the amount demanded as per the notice dated 11.9.2024. For the year 2024-25, the petitioner states in the representation that he has procured raw bricks from other brick-kiln and has brought his brick-kiln to running position for the year 2024-25. The petitioner further states in the representation that he requires approval for soil mining for the year 2024-25. Evident it is that nothing has been said in the aforesaid representation of the petitioner regarding the demand made by the respondents for the financial year 2023-24. When the financial year 2024-25 is drawing to a close, the petitioner is seeking approval for soil mining for the financial year 2024-25.

8. Under the circumstances, since it has not been demonstrated that the petitioner had submitted a reply of the notice dated 13.03.2020 within the period specified by the Court, and that the petitioner has deposited the outstanding amount that was sought to be recovered from the petitioner, and that only a bald assertion has been made in paragraph no.7 of the writ petition that on 01.02.2025 he had deposited 50% of the amount, compliance of the order dated 17.01.2025 passed in the previous writ petition has not been conclusively demonstrated.

9. The entire petition is vague and has not demonstrated that the petitioner has been making statutory compliances duly. This petition has been filed only to circumvent or delay statutory proceedings, including recovery of due amounts that the respondents would seek to recover against the petitioner.

10. For the reasons aforesaid, this petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025/Himanshu HIMANSHU YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to provide the details of actual amount of legal dues (if any) pending against petitioner within stipulated period of time. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to accept the required legal deposit and to issue appropriate challan receipt to petitioner as per law so that petitioner may run his brick kiln as per law. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to grant approval to petitioner for mining of clay for year 2024-25. (iv) Issue such other and further writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

3. It appears that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by means of Writ C No.37254 of 2024 which was disposed of by means of an order dated 17.01.2025. That order is quoted below:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:- (i) issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned recovery certificate dated 30.07.2021 issued by respondent no.3 (Annexure-1). (ii) issue such other and further writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notices which were sent to the petitioner, were never received by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore has submitted that, the respondents upon a presumption that the petitioner was running brick klin with 23 chimneys, were making the recovery. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has submitted that in fact there were only 12 chimneys which were being operated for the purposes of production of the bricks.

4. Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has, however, submitted that if the case of the petitioner is that no notices were served upon him, then the petitioner now has the knowledge of notice and he can go and reply to the same and the reply would thereafter be considered and the matter would be adjudicated upon.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, upon instructions from his client stated that the petitioner was ready and willing to deposit 50% of the amount which was payable under the recovery certificate.

6. Without going further into the details of the case, we provide that the first notice dated 13.03.2020 which was sent to the petitioner be now deemed to have been served upon it and it may now through its proprietor submit a reply to the notice dated 30.03.2020 within a period of fifteen days. However, the reply would be accepted only if the petitioner deposits 50% of the amount which was sought to be recovered within a period of fifteen days. The remaining amount which was sought to be recovered shall remain stayed till the decision is arrived at by the A.D.M./In-charge Mines, Muzaffar Nagar after the reply has been submitted by the petitioner.

7. We clarify that, if, the amount as has been promised to be paid by the petitioner is not deposited as per the undertaking given by it, then the State shall be free to recover the entire amount in accordance with law.

8. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out that pursuant to the aforesaid order by the Writ Court in the previous petition of the petitioner, whether the reply was submitted by the petitioner. Given the conditions mentioned in the paragraph no.6 of the order dated 17.01.2025, for want of enclosing the reply to the notice dated 13.03.2020 by the petitioner, a presumption can be drawn that the petitioner did not file any reply.

5. Now the petitioner has approached this Court by means of the instant writ petition seeking reliefs that are vague. It appears from the record that repeatedly notices have been sent to the petitioner on 23.08.2024 and 11.09.2024 but their compliance has not been made.

6. A perusal of the two notices dated 11.09.2024 that are collectively enclosed as Annexure no.6 to the writ petition reflect that previous two notices of 23.08.2024 were also issued to the petitioner asking it to demonstrate deposit of various charges for the financial year 2022-23 and 2023-24 failing which recovery proceedings would be initiated against it.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that three days' time was granted to the petitioner to comply with the aforesaid notices. It appears that the petitioner did not furnish the needful in compliance of the aforesaid notices dated 11.9.2024. It was by means of a representation dated 27.1.2025, which, as per the registered post receipt enclosed at the end of the representation, appears to have been dispatched on 28.2.2025, that the petitioner sought to address the concerns of the respondents which is reflected in the aforesaid notices dated 11.9.2024. This representation dated 27.1.2025 contains no enclosures. In the representation it is stated that for the year 2022-23 no approval was granted to the petitioner for mining of soil. It is stated that the petitioner repeatedly met the Mines Clerk in response to the notice dated 11.9.2024 who did not make the challan for deposit of the money; that the petitioner is ready to deposit the amount demanded as per the notice dated 11.9.2024. For the year 2024-25, the petitioner states in the representation that he has procured raw bricks from other brick-kiln and has brought his brick-kiln to running position for the year 2024-25. The petitioner further states in the representation that he requires approval for soil mining for the year 2024-25. Evident it is that nothing has been said in the aforesaid representation of the petitioner regarding the demand made by the respondents for the financial year 2023-24. When the financial year 2024-25 is drawing to a close, the petitioner is seeking approval for soil mining for the financial year 2024-25.

8. Under the circumstances, since it has not been demonstrated that the petitioner had submitted a reply of the notice dated 13.03.2020 within the period specified by the Court, and that the petitioner has deposited the outstanding amount that was sought to be recovered from the petitioner, and that only a bald assertion has been made in paragraph no.7 of the writ petition that on 01.02.2025 he had deposited 50% of the amount, compliance of the order dated 17.01.2025 passed in the previous writ petition has not been conclusively demonstrated.

9. The entire petition is vague and has not demonstrated that the petitioner has been making statutory compliances duly. This petition has been filed only to circumvent or delay statutory proceedings, including recovery of due amounts that the respondents would seek to recover against the petitioner.

10. For the reasons aforesaid, this petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025/Himanshu HIMANSHU YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad