NANHEY SINGH Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri V.K. Singh Advocate for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. Counter and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged. ?With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is being finally disposed of. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.7. 2006 Annexure 1 to the writ petition passed by the District Magistrate by which the petitioner's representation against the recovery for amount of Rs. 10, 81,583.00 has been rejected.

(2.) PETITIONER 's case in the writ petition is that against him a complaint was made by the private person out of their personal ill will? that petitioner has indulged in illegal mining, on which complaint reports submitted were not based on relevant material and a direction was issued for recovery of huge amount. Petitioner had earlier come to this court against the recovery which writ petition was disposed of by order dated 26.5.2006 giving liberty to the petitioner to represent the matter to the District Magistrate who was directed to consider the same and till the disposal of the representation? recovery was kept in abeyance against the petitioner. Petitioner's case is that although the District Magistrate has passed the order? rejecting the representation by order dated 21.7.2006 but no reason as to on what basis the illegal mining against the petitioner has been proved were given.

(3.) THE basis of report dated 31.8.2004 was inspection made on 27.8.2004 but what was the material for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had indulged in illegal mining? was not mentioned not has even been referred to in the counter affidavit. Learned counsel submits that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition certain further reports have come on record,? which have been brought on record which are also relevant to be considered before? taking a final decision.