PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2691 of 2017 dated 15.11.2018.

(2.) Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the appellantwrit petitioner was given a mining lease to lift river-bed material for a period of nine months at Village Chinyali, Tehsil Chinyalisaud, Uttarkashi district, subject to payment of royalty of Rs. 35,09.775.00 for the nine-month period of the lease. Contending that he was disabled, for reasons beyond his control, from lifting the river-bed material for a five-month period, the appellant-writ petitioner requested the respondents not to impose royalty on him for the said period and to extend the lease for a further period of five months to enable him to lift the river-bed material. On his request being rejected, the appellant-writ petitioner preferred an appeal to the State Government. By order dated 29.08.2017, the Additional Secretary held that the monthly royalty payable by the appellantwrit petitioner was Rs. 3,89,975.00, and that he should pay the balance royalty payable in six monthly installments.

(3.) Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2691 of 2017 contending that, since extension of lease period was granted to some others, he should also be extended the same benefit. In his order dated 19.07.2018, the learned Single Judge, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Directorate of Fil Festivals and others vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain and others, 2007 4 SCC 737, observed that two wrongs do not make a right; and, if a benefit has been wrongly granted to one set of individuals, that would not be a ground for the same benefit being extended to the appellant-writ petitioner. While making it clear that it is always open to the appellant-writ petitioner to challenge the said order granting exemption to other persons, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that no relief can be granted to the appellantwrit petitioner.