MANJEET KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the certiorari quashing the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the respondent no.3 and the notice of auction issued by the respondent no.4 fixing 17.1.2017 for auction of the property of the petitioner.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he is having a land in Village Ukrouli, Tehsil Sitarganj, Udham Singh Nagar. In May 2015, one Shri Prakash Chandra Bhatt (respondent no.5) approached the petitioner and his brother and requested them to lease out their measuring 1.185 hectare in his name for the purpose of collecting and storing the R.B.M. (sand, bolder and mineral). The petitioner and his brother agreed to this and a rent agreement was prepared between the parties whereby the land mentioned above was given to the respondent no.5 for a period of three years. The respondent no.5, after taking the aforesaid land on rent, started doing business of R.B.M. According to the petitioner, he received a notice dated 05.10.2015 wherein an allegation of illegal storage of mineral was leveled against him and he was asked to submit his written statement. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner submitted his written statement. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 passed the impugned order, imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,76,000/- Lakhs upon the petitioner for alleged illegal storage of minerals.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed an appeal in the court of Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital (respondent no.2) against the impugned order dated 18.03.2016 but since the respondent no.2 is not holding Court from a long time as he has an additional charge of Secretary, State Government, therefore, the petitioner is not able pursue his stay application filed in the appeal and as a consequence the respondent no.4 has issued a notice of auction whereby the property of the petitioner is to be auctioned on 17.01.2017. Learned counsel confines his prayer to the extent that a direction be issued to the respondent no.2 to decide the stay application moved by the petitioner in the appeal, before 17.01.2017. He further submits that in case stay application is not decided before that day, the property will be auctioned which cannot be compensated in any manner. Learned Standing Counsel for the State fairly submits that in case a direction is issued to the respondent no.2 to hold the court before 17.01.2017 and to decide the stay application moved by the petitioner, the same will be done by the respondent no.2.