SANJAY KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for quashing the Order dated 22.5.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Etawah (respondent no.2). It appears that mining lease was granted in favour of the petitioner by the Lease-Deed dated 29.8.2006 for a period of 3 years.

(2.) A complaint was made by the respondent no.5 that the petitioner had entered into a partnership with the respondent no.5 and his wife Smt. Deepti Chaturvedi for operating the aforesaid mining lease. Thereupon, a Notice dated 20.3.2008 was issued to the petitioner requiring the petitioner to show-cause as to why the mining lease in his favour be not cancelled on account of violation of Rule 19 of the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 (in short "The 1963 Rules"). The petitioner submitted his Reply dated 26.3.2008.

(3.) IN view of the nature of controversy involved in the present Writ Petition, we are of the opinion that it will be appropriate that the petitioner be relegated to the alternative remedy of filing Appeal under Rule 77 of the 1963 Rules, which is available to the petitioner. We accordingly dismiss the Writ Petition on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by filing an Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner against the Order dated 22.5.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Etawah (respondent no.2).