ROSHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.06.2016 passed by the respondent no. 4, whereby recovery citation of ' 10,44,250/- has been issued against the petitioner. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital to decide the Appeal No. 2515 of 2016, Roshan Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand expeditiously.

(2.) Petitioner is a farmer and, at present, is a Member of Zila Panchayat Committee, Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. On 04.12.2014, a notice was issued to the petitioner, alleging therein that, on 26.11.2014, mining team found illegal mining in the area and the petitioner was found involved in the same. Case no. 52/49 of 2014, State vs. Sanjay Kumar and others was registered before the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. Petitioner submitted his reply before the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. In his reply, petitioner submitted that he belongs to the opposition party and, due to this reason, he was implicated in the instant matter. It is further stated that petitioner was never involved in the mining work, whether legal or illegal. On 25.04.2016, the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar passed an order, holding that the petitioner was involved in illegal mining of 2265 ghan meter, for which, penalty of Rs. 10,44,250/- was imposed upon the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital bearing no. 2015/2016, which is still pending before the Commissioner. Thereafter, on 10.06.2016, the respondent no. 4 issued a recovery citation of Rs. 10,44,250/- against the petitioner. Against the said recovery citation, present writ petition has been filed..

(3.) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was never involved in the illegal mining and he has been falsely implicated due to the political rivalry. He further submits that the appeal filed by the petitioner has not been decided by the Commissioner so far and, until appeal is decided by the Commissioner, no recovery citation should have been issued against the petitioner.