DILIP B.BHOSALE,C.J. - (1.) Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Pratap Vikram Singh for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
(2.) This writ petition calls in question an order dated 2 November 2017 passed by the Commissioner, Saharanpur acting as the appellate authority under the U.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules 19631. A further writ is sought to restrain the respondents from adopting any coercive measures pursuant to the order referred to above as well as the order dated 19 July 2017. The latter order passed by the District Magistrate, Saharanpur holds the petitioner guilty of having indulged in illegal mining in areas far beyond those which had been leased to them. It has accordingly held the petitioner liable to pay royalty amounting to Rs. 9,84,70,075/. This order has been admittedly challenged in appeal before the Commissioner, 1963 Rules Saharanpur Division who by his order dated 2 November 2017 has rejected the stay application preferred by the petitioner noting that since allegations were prima facie established against the petitioner, the ends of justice would merit them being commanded to deposit the sums as adjudicated and held to be payable by the petitioner in terms of the order of the District Magistrate referred to above.
(3.) It becomes pertinent to note that taking cognisance of large scale illegal mining in District Saharanpur, the Directorate of Geology and Mining in the Government of Uttar Pradesh appears to have constituted an enquiry committee to scrutinise such complaints and submit a report. This committee submitted a report dated 17 July 2012 holding that 31,62,742 cubic meters of minor mineral had been illegally excavated. The report is stated to have been forwarded to the District Magistrate Saharanpur, by the Directorate under cover of its letter dated 21 December 2012. It is on the basis of the report submitted by the said committee that cognisance was taken by the District Magistrate of the entire episode and the petitioner was put to notice and called upon to show cause. Upon receipt of the said show cause notices, the petitioner furnished a reply which however was not found acceptable by the District Magistrate who consequently proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 19 July 2017. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Rule 77 of the 1963 Rules and it is the disposal of the stay application moved in this appeal by the Commissioner which has led to the filing of the present writ petition.;