- (1.) Heard Sri Vishesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Alok Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.
(2.) The State having filed counter affidavit, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.
(3.) Brief facts of the case which emerged from pleadings of the parties are; that the petitioner claims to be a small scale industry carrying on the business of stone crushing. The petitioner claims to have been granted no objection certificate by the U.P. Pollution Control Board with regard to air and water pollution. On 6.9.2012, the petitioner applied for grant of licence for storage of minerals in accordance with the U.P. Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2002. (hereinafter referred to as ''2002 Rules'). A show cause notice dated 29.9.2012 was issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause with regard to seven issues as mentioned in the notice. The petitioner claims to have filed a reply to the show cause on 4.12.2012. A joint inspection was held of the petitioner's stone crusher on 6.6.2013 by a team of officers consisting of Mining officer, Regional Officers, U.P. Pollution Control Board and two other officials. At the time of inspection 120 cubic meter minerals were found stored without petitioner having any storage licence. The inspection team also found several other illegalities. Direction was issued by the team to stop the operation of stone crusher and the minor minerals (Gitti/boulders) were directed to be taken into possession. A show cause notice dated 4.7.2013 was issued asking the petitioner to show cause within 30 days as to how the stone crusher was being run. The notice alleged violation of Rule 3/57/70 of U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 and violation of Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 as well as violation of 2002 Rules. On 5.6.2013, the District Magistrate issued a notice to the petitioner pointing out certain deficiencies in the application dated 6.9.2012 submitted by the petitioner for grant of storage licence. The petitioner was asked to remove the deficiencies within seven days failing which the petitioner's application for storage of the licence would be rejected. The petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondents dated 6.6.2013 by which operation of the petitioner's stone crusher was stopped has filed his writ petition praying for the following reliefs: "i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 06.06.2013 passed by the respondents by which the operation of the industry of the petitioner is prohibited and 120m3 of minor minerals has been seized. (Annexure no. 1). ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the stone crusher machine and 120 M3 of minor minerals seized by them vide order dated 06.06.2013.";