w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Gopal Ram v/s State of Uttarakhand through its Principal Secretary Industrial Development, Civil Secretariat, Dehradun

Company & Directors' Information:- RAM INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL1946PTC001081

    Writ Petition (M/S) No. 396 of 2009

    Decided On, 16 June 2010

    At, High Court of Uttaranchal


    For the Appearing Parties: --------------

Judgment Text

B.S. Verma, J.

(1.) Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(4.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 24-2-2009 passed by respondent no. 1 on the representation of petitioner and allow the application of petitioner dated 22-12-2004 and thereby grant him prospecting licence.

(ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant the prospecting licence in favour of the petitioner in the area of village Sunewar, District Bageshwar.

(iii) Any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the cost of petition to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he applied for the grant of prospective licence in his favour as per Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short the Rules) to the respondents in respect of 14.994 Hectares of land of village Bhairuchabatta (Talla Bhairu), district Bageshwar on 22-12-2004, which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the petition. The petitioner was asked by the respondent no. 2 to remove the deficiency and submit the document before respondent no.2 within a period of 30 days. The petitioner completed the necessary formalities as asked for.

(5.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the application of the petitioner has been wrongly dismissed by the order dated 24-2- 2009 by the State Government, on the ground that the petitioner has no experience in mining. He is not having technical staff and there is no basic facilities for mining development as per clause no. 4 of the Government Order dated 7-1-2004.

(6.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that statutory remedy of revision before the Central Government under Rule 54 of the Rules is available to the petitioner against the impugned order.

(7.) Since statutory remedy of filing revision is available to the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of alternate remedy.

(8.) If the revision is preferred by the petitioner before the appropriate Forum, the same shall be d

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ecided by the authority concerned, expeditiously as far as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of revision. (9.) With the above direction and observation, the writ petition is hereby dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy.