Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38918 of 2019 Petitioner :- Gayatri Project Ltd.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 04 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Pathak,Amarnath Tripathi,Rakesh Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue the following reliefs:-
"(a). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the R.C. Form-36 dated 24.07.2019 (annexure no. 9) amounting Rs. 81,34,300/- issued by the respondent no. 3 for recovery against the petitioner.
(b). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to take auction proceeding or any other coercive action against the petitioner for realizing the due amount and give the current detail of the due amount against the petitioner at the present time.
(c). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to take recovery charges in realization of the due amount.
(d). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 5 to decide the Case No. 01127 of 2019 along with the stay application expediently.
(e). Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(f). Award the cost of present writ petition in favour of the petitioner."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that against the order dated 14.06.2019 an appeal has already been filed by the petitioner under Rule 77 of the U.P. Miner Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 (in short as Rules, 1963) and the same is still pending. He further submits that despite the fact that appeal is pending, recovery citation has been issued by the respondents.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that in case the appeal filed by the petitioner is not decided and recovery proceeding is initiated against the petitioner, the appeal filed by him would be rendered infructuous.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we direct the respondent No. 5 - Commission, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj to decide the appeal No. 01127 of 2019 (Gayatri Project Limited through M.B. Suresh Vs. District Magistrate, Pratapgarh and others) be decided by a reasoned and speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing personally to the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
For a period of three months from today or till the order is passed on the said appeal whichever is earlier, no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merit of the case and it is open for the authority concerned to decide the appeal on its merit without uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this ordr.
The learned counsel for petitioner undertakes to serve a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 within a period of one week from today.
With aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 LBY