VINAY PRAKASH SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instructions filed today by learned Standing Counsel be kept on record.

(2.) In pursuance of an e-tender notice dtd. 9/6/2017, the petitioner applied and when he was found to be the highest bidder for the mining of morum of 30,351 cubic meters in Plot no. 6 of Zone-10, area 10 acre, he was given a six months permit from 9/6/2017 to 8/12/2017. While the petitioner was excavating the morum, he got a notice dtd. 25/6/2017, which was numbered as Letter No. 356, and he was to give an explanation with regard to non submission of environmental clearance certificate and non installation of CCTV camera etc. Simultaneously, another notice was served upon the petitioner on 5/7/2017, wherein, the same notice number being Letter No. 356 was given and he was required to show cause as to why royalty and penalty for illegal mining of 5436 cubic meters be not taken from him.

(3.) On 12/7/2017, the petitioner's reply to the notice with regard to the illegal mining was submitted wherein it was stated that the petitioner had not done any illegal mining but in fact had carved out a certain path for reaching the place of mining. When the petitioner's reply was not being considered, he filed a writ petition being Writ-C No. 55531 of 2017 and challenged the notice dtd. 25/6/2017. However, this Court on 22/11/2017 passed an order that the petitioner's reply be considered within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of order dtd. 22/11/2017.