MEHARBANO Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and

(2.) ; and perused the record. 2. The petitioner was provided a mining permit in terms of Rule 52-A of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rule, 1963 (In short 'Rules 1963') for lifting sand/morum from her Bhimidhari plots. The said permit was granted for a period of 28 days starting from 3/6/2020 up to 30/6/2020 subject to deposit of royalty amounting to Rs.14,44,560.00. According to the petitioner the entire royalty demanded was deposited but within 12 days of grant, the Additional District Magistrate (F/R)/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, on alleged use of Pokeland machine, stopped the mining operations and imposed penalty of Rs. five lacs, which was deposited by the petitioner. Thereafter, by claiming that the petitioner could not successfully complete the mining operations for the entire period of permit, the petitioner filed Writ C No.1291 of 2021 for refund of the royalty in proportion to the mining which the petitioner could not complete as permitted by the permit. This writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dtd. 21/2/2021 extracted below :

(3.) By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks following direction:-