# Ram Pratap & Ors v. State of U.P & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 989
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-07
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 18378 of 2019
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava, Sudhanshu Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-pratap-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52608
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

C.S.C.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether proceedings for imposing liability for
illegal mining and fixing financial responsibility
under the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 and the U.P. Minor
Minerals
(Concession)
Rules,
1963
must
necessarily
involve
a
full-fledged
inquiry
comprising disclosure of allegations, supply of
material/evidence, opportunity of defence, and
recording of reasoned findings in conformity
with the principles of natural justice; or whether
such proceedings can be sustained solely on the
basis of an ex-parte joint inspection report ?

HEADNOTE
Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 - U.P. Minor
Minerals
(Concession)
Rules,
1963
-
Proceedings for illegal mining - Entire
action initiated solely on the basis of a
joint
inspection
report
-
Inspection
conducted ex-parte, without notice to the
petitioners and without preparation of
bearing report, surveyor's diary, or even
the map of the location - Only person
present
at
site,
a
petty
contractor,
subsequently filed an affidavit stating that
he had been coerced to name the
petitioners; respondents did not dispute
this - Impugned orders non-speaking,
unreasoned, mechanical, and reflecting
complete non-application of mind, as none
of
the
contentions
raised
in
the
petitioners' reply or in revision were dealt
with - Proceedings to impose liability for
illegal
mining,
being
quasi
judicial
proceedings entailing civil consequences,
require a full-fledged inquiry comprising
allegation/evidence,
opportunity
of
defence,
and
recording
of
reasoned
findings; State must prove illegal mining
through credible evidence - Action cannot
be sustained on an ex-parte inspection -
Remand declined as more than eleven
years had elapsed; orders set aside and
deposits directed to be refunded with
interest.

HELD Court held that the entire proceedings
were initiated against the petitioners solely on
the basis of a joint inspection report which was
carried out without any notice to the petitioners.
Essential ingredients of a lawful inspectionbearing report, surveyor's diary, and even the
map of the location where the inspection had
been conducted-were missing, a fact which
was not disputed by the respondents. Impugned
990 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order passed by the District Magistrate was nonspeaking and unreasoned, and none of the
contentions raised by the petitioners in their
reply were dealt with. The joint inspection
report was never furnished to the petitioners.
Revisional order also failed to address various
contentions raised by the petitioners. Court
reiterated that proceedings for determining
allegations
of
illegal
mining
possess
the
character of quasi-judicial proceedings, and the
authority is required to conduct a full-fledged
inquiry comprising allegation/evidence, followed
by an opportunity to defend and reasoned
findings, especially since such orders entail civil
consequences. The burden lies on the State to
prove illegal mining by credible evidence, and
every
quasi-judicial
order
must
contain
reasons.Given that more than eleven years had
elapsed since the inspection and that the factual
situation at the site would no longer be the
same, the Court held that no useful purpose
would be served in remitting the matter.
Accordingly, the impugned orders were set
aside, and the amounts deposited by the
petitioners were directed to be refunded along
with 7% simple interest per annum (Para 15-21,
24, 26) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Ranveer Singh v. State of U.P., 2017 (8) ADJ
240;
Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed
Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496.

List of Acts

## Text

10 All. Ram Pratap & Ors. Vs. State of U.P..& Ors.
989
case is entitled to receive a refund
of the amounts once the 16A forms are
accepted by the Income Tax Authority. To
facilitate the entire process, we direct the
petitioner to appear before the respondent
No.3 on 28.10.2025 at 11:00 AM at the
office of the respondent No.3.

10. The respondent No.3 is directed
to take note of all the documents being
filed by the petitioner and pass necessary
orders in accordance with law within a
period of four weeks from date.

11. The petitioner shall be at liberty
to rely upon the judgments that have been
cited here and the circular of the CBDT
before the Assessing Officer.

12. With the above direction, the
writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 989
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN , J.

Writ - C No. 18378 of 2019

Ram Pratap & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P..& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Arvind Srivastava, Raj Narayan Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether proceedings for imposing liability for
illegal mining and fixing financial responsibility
under the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 and the U.P. Minor
Minerals
(Concession)
Rules,
1963
must
necessarily
involve
a
full-fledged
inquiry
comprising disclosure of allegations, supply of
material/evidence, opportunity of defence, and
recording of reasoned findings in conformity
with the principles of natural justice; or whether
such proceedings can be sustained solely on the
basis of an ex-parte joint inspection report ?

HEADNOTE
Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 - U.P. Minor
Minerals
(Concession)
Rules,
1963
-
Proceedings for illegal mining - Entire
action initiated solely on the basis of a
joint
inspection
report
-
Inspection
conducted ex-parte, without notice to the
petitioners and without preparation of
bearing report, surveyor's diary, or even
the map of the location - Only person
present
at
site,
a
petty
contractor,
subsequently filed an affidavit stating that
he had been coerced to name the
petitioners; respondents did not dispute
this - Impugned orders non-speaking,
unreasoned, mechanical, and reflecting
complete non-application of mind, as none
of
the
contentions
raised
in
the
petitioners' reply or in revision were dealt
with - Proceedings to impose liability for
illegal
mining,
being
quasi
judicial
proceedings entailing civil consequences,
require a full-fledged inquiry comprising
allegation/evidence,
opportunity
of
defence,
and
recording
of
reasoned
findings; State must prove illegal mining
through credible evidence - Action cannot
be sustained on an ex-parte inspection -
Remand declined as more than eleven
years had elapsed; orders set aside and
deposits directed to be refunded with
interest.

HELD Court held that the entire proceedings
were initiated against the petitioners solely on
the basis of a joint inspection report which was
carried out without any notice to the petitioners.
Essential ingredients of a lawful inspectionbearing report, surveyor's diary, and even the
map of the location where the inspection had
been conducted-were missing, a fact which
was not disputed by the respondents. Impugned
990 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order passed by the District Magistrate was nonspeaking and unreasoned, and none of the
contentions raised by the petitioners in their
reply were dealt with. The joint inspection
report was never furnished to the petitioners.
Revisional order also failed to address various
contentions raised by the petitioners. Court
reiterated that proceedings for determining
allegations
of
illegal
mining
possess
the
character of quasi-judicial proceedings, and the
authority is required to conduct a full-fledged
inquiry comprising allegation/evidence, followed
by an opportunity to defend and reasoned
findings, especially since such orders entail civil
consequences. The burden lies on the State to
prove illegal mining by credible evidence, and
every
quasi-judicial
order
must
contain
reasons.Given that more than eleven years had
elapsed since the inspection and that the factual
situation at the site would no longer be the
same, the Court held that no useful purpose
would be served in remitting the matter.
Accordingly, the impugned orders were set
aside, and the amounts deposited by the
petitioners were directed to be refunded along
with 7% simple interest per annum (Para 15-21,
24, 26) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Ranveer Singh v. State of U.P., 2017 (8) ADJ
240;
Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed
Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496.

List of Acts
36. Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation)
Act,
1957;
U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963;

37. List of Keywords
38. Illegal mining - Joint inspection report -
Quasi-judicial proceedings - Natural justice -
Burden of proof - Non-speaking order - Civil
consequences - Judicial review.
39.
40. CASE ARISING FROM
41. Orders dated 04.06.2016 passed by the
District Magistrate and 24.04.2019 passed by
the Special Secretary, Geology and Mining, U.P.
42.
43. Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Arvind Srivastava, Raj
Narayan Singh
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhanshu
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

2. At the very outset, counsel for
the petitioner informs that the petitioner
no.1, Sri Ram Pratap has passed away
during the pendency of the present writ
petition and no effort whatsoever has been
made by the legal heirs of the deceased
petitioner
no.1
to
get
themselves
substituted as party in the present writ
petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition
stands abated in respect of petitioner no.1
under Chapter VIII Rule 38A of the
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

3. The contention of the petitioners
is essentially that the petitioner no.1 was
granted a mining lease over Gata No.2434
for an area of 2 Acres on 18.07.2001 for the
tenure of 10 years. Similarly, the petitioner
no.2 was granted a mining lease over the
Gata No.2434 for an area of 2 Acres for a
tenure of 10 years and the petitioner no.3
was granted a mining lease over Gata
No.2434 for an area of 5 Acres on
17.04.2003 for a tenure of 10 years. It is
pertinent to mention here that all the three
mining leases were situate over Gata
No.2434 Village-Rauli Kalyanpur, Tehsil-
Kurvi, District- Chitrakoot.

4. It is further submitted that on
complaint of one Sri Brijesh Kumar, a joint
inspection of the area was carried out in
pursuance to the letter dated 01.12.2014 of
the Directorate. It is also stated that the
joint
inspection
so
conducted
on
10 All. Ram Pratap & Ors. Vs. State of U.P..& Ors.
991
03.12.2014 was an ex-parte inspection and
the petitioners had no prior information
about this inspection. During the joint
inspection illegal mining was found to have
taken place at Gata No.2434 allegedly at
the behest of the petitioners. In the joint
inspection report only two ropes were
recovered which were used for making
holes in the rocks. One Sri Bhairam, a petty
contractor of petitioner no.2 was found at
site who had informed that the work of
mining was taking place at the behest of
petitioner
no.1
and
petitioner
no.2.
However, Sri Bhairam refused to give any
statement in writing to the joint inspection
team.

5. Consequently, a show cause
notice dated 25.02.2015 was issued to the
petitioners solely on the basis of the joint
inspection report, wherein it was held that
the petitioners were carrying out illegal
mining under the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
(hereinafter referred to as, ?the Act, 1957?)
and the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession)
Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as, ?the
Rules, 1963?) and and the petitioners were
called upon to submit their reply within
seven days.

6. The petitioners thereafter had
filed an application dated 14.02.2015
thereby seeking various documents from
the respondents including the copy of the
joint inspection report, the height of the hill
at the time of the inspection, the survey
report etc. However, in response to the said
application vide letter dated 06.07.2015
certain documents were provided to the
petitioners but the same were not in respect
of
joint
inspection
carried
out
on
03.12.2014 but that of a joint inspection
report dated 02.11.2014 in respect of one
Sri Dharmendra Kumar who had been
granted a mining lease in respect of the
very same Gata No.2434 for an area of 5
Acres.

7. Thereafter, the petitioners once
again vide letter dated 16.07.2015 had
requested the District Mining Officer,
Chitrakoot/respondent No.3 for providing
copies of the relevant documents and had
further informed that the documents sought
earlier vide the letter dated 14.02.2015 had
not been provided to the petitioners by
means of the letter dated 06.07.2015. The
petitioners have also relied upon a letter
dated 08.01.2016 issued by the Mining
Inspector, Chitrakoot addressed to the
Public Information Officer Directorate of
Geology and Mining, Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow, thereby requesting to provide the
various
documents
sought
by
the
petitioners by means of letter dated
14.02.2015 including the joint inspection
dated 03.12.2014, to demonstrate that the
information sought by the petitioners had
not been provided to them till that point of
time.

8. The petitioners in response to the
show cause notice dated 25.02.2015 had
ultimately submitted their reply dated
28.11.2015, vehementaly denying the role
of petitioners in illegal mining.

9. It was stated that the entire
proceedings had been initiated on the basis
of
a
joint
inspection
report
dated
03.12.2014 and the report was manipulated
and no map of the site was prepared at the
time of the inspection. The inspection team
had
also
not
prepared
the
survey
diary/bearing
report
at
the
time
of
inspection. Besides in the inspection report
dated 02.11.2014, in respect of lease of
Gata No.2434 in favour of Sri Dharmendra
Kumar no illegal mining was found to have
992 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
taken place at the site. No mining
equipment was recovered from the site,
where the illegal mining had allegedly
taken place. Sri Bhairam, in his affidavit
had controverted the allegations made in
the joint inspection report.

10. It is in the above background
that the petitioners had filed Writ C- No.-
14022 of 2016 before this Hon?ble Court
and the Hon?ble Court vide judgment and
order dated 31.03.2016 had directed the
respondent
no.2
to
take
appropriate
decision in accordance with law in respect
of the notice issued to the petitioners after
considering the reply submitted by the
petitioners within a period of six weeks
from the date of production of certified
copy of the order.

11. Subsequently, the respondent
no.2 vide the order dated 04.06.2016 had
rejected the reply of the petitioners and
directed that the petitioners deposit the
demand made by means of the notice dated
25.02.2015 within 30 days.

12. The petitioners being aggrieved
by the order dated 04.06.2016 had filed
revision under Rule 78 of the Rules, 1963
before the State Government stating that
the petitioners had not indulged in any
illegal mining activity and the order dated
04.06.2016 had been passed without
affording any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners. However, the revision so filed
by the petitioners was also rejected vide the
order dated 24.04.2019. Subsequently the
petitioners had filed the present writ
petition.

13. The respondents in the present
proceedings have
filed
their
counter
affidavit
essentially
stating
that
on
receiving the information that illegal
mining was being carried out by the
petitioners, a spot inspection was carried
out and during the inspection it was found
that the petitioners were doing illegal
mining in the mining area allotted to Sri
Dharmendra. The persons present at site
had also stated that the petitioners were
doing illegal mining and the inquiry report
was not prepared solely on the basis of
statement made by Sri Bhairam. It was
stated that the information sought by the
petitioners had duly been provided to the
petitioners and the order passed by the
respondent no.2 is in due accordance with
law and penalty for illegal mining has
rightly been imposed upon the petitioners.
It was also admitted that the mining lease
of petitioner no.1 had expired and the
petitioner no.1 had deposited the renewal
fee but the proceedings for execution of
lease could not be completed. Further the
revision, filed by the petitioners was
rejected on the basis of all the facts and
materials available on record and the
inspection report dated 03.12.2014.

14. The petitioners have challenged
the order dated 04.06.2014 and the
revisional
order
dated
24.04.2019
essentially on the ground that the same has
been passed solely on the basis of ex-parte
joint inspection report dated 03.12.2014
and the said report was prepared without
even
preparing
the
bearing
report,
surveyor?s diary and the map of the
location, where the inspection had taken
place. The impugned orders were cryptic
and non-speaking and fails to deal with the
contentions raised by the petitioners in the
reply dated 28.11.2015 and in the revision
filed before the State Government. Besides
the
fact
that
no
mining
equipment/instruments were found at the
site except for two ropes and Sri Bhairam
had also filed his affidavit clarifying his
10 All. Ram Pratap & Ors. Vs. State of U.P..& Ors.
993
stand but the same too has been overlooked
by the respondent no.2 as well as the
revisional authority.

15. On the perusal of the records it
is revealed that entire proceedings have
been initiated against the petitioner solely
on the basis of a joint inspection report
dated 3.12.2014.The joint inspection report
is the sole basis on which the show cause
notice dated 25.2.2015 has been issued to
the petitioners as well as the basis on which
the impugned order dated 4.6.2016 has
been passed by respondent no.2. In fact, the
respondents themselves in para 25 have
alleged as under:-

 "25. That in reply to the contents
of paragraph no.27 of the writ petitioner it
is stated that considering the inspection
report, the District Magistrate has passed
the order."

16. It is also evident from the
record that no notice was issued to the
petitioners prior to carrying out the
inspection
on
3.12.2014.
Further
no
representative of the petitioners was present
at site at the time when joint inspection was
carried out. The only person present at site
at the time of inspection was Sri Bhairam
who was alleged to be petty contractor of
the petitioner no.2 and it is also alleged that
it was Sri Bhairam who had informed that
the illegal mining was being carried out by
the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 .
However, it is also not disputed that Sri
Bhairam had given an affidavit stating that
he was coerced to take the names of the
petitioners on being pressurized by Sri
Dharmendra Kumar, who was also the
leaseholder of the same gata number and
Sri Bhairam was a petty contractor of Sri
Dharmendra Kumar. The aforesaid fact has
not been disputed by the respondents in
their
counter
affidavit.
In
fact,
the
respondent in paragraph no. 30 of their
counter affidavit have alleged as under:-

 "30. That in reply to the contents
of paragraph no.32 of the writ petition is is
stated that the action has not been taken
according to the statement of Bhairam
whereas the action has been taken after
finding illegal mining got done by the
petitioners."

17. However, the perusal of the
joint inspection report dated 03.12.2014
reveals that none was available on site
other than Sri Bhairam to point out that the
illegal mining was being carried out by the
petitioners. Further the perusal of the
records as well as the counter affidavit of
the respondents reveals that there is no
other material available to show that the
illegal mining was being carried out by the
petitioners, other than the statement made
by Sri Bhairam before the joint inspection
team.
18. The joint inspection report was
prepared without preparing the bearing
report, surveyor's diary and even the map
of the location where inspection had been
conducted was not prepared. The aforesaid
fact has also not been disputed by the
respondents in their counter affidavit. It is
also admitted position that the mining lease
granted in favor of the petitioner no.1 had
expired and lease was yet to be renewed on
the date of inspection. Further the mining
lease in favor of the petitioner no. 3 had
also expired on 16.4.2013. It was only the
mining lease of the petitioner no.2 that was
subsisting on the date of inspection. Thus
even otherwise not only the inspection was
carried out ex-parte but certain essential
ingredients which ought to have been
incorporated in the joint inspection report
were also missing.
994 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
19. The petitioners had filed a
detailed reply dated 28.11.2015 to the show
cause notice categorically denying the role
of the petitioners in the matter and
questioning the veracity of the joint
inspection report dated 3.12.2014. However
the respondent no.2 while passing the
impugned order dated 4.6.2016 had failed
to deal with any of the contentions so
raised in the reply of the petitioners dated
28.11.2015. The perusal of the impugned
order dated 4.6.2016 reveals that the
contentions raised by the petitioners in their
reply dated 28.11.2015 had not been dealt
by the respondent no.2. The only finding
given by the respondent no.2 in the
impugned order is that all the documents
sought by the petitioners under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 had been supplied to
the petitioners by means of the letters dated
6.7.2015 and 7.9.2015, even the aforesaid
finding is perverse in view of the fact that
the documents sought by the petitioners
were not supplied by means of the later
dated 6.7.2015 as would be evident from
the letter dated 16.7.2015 on the petitioners
wherein it has been stated that the
inspection report dated 02.11.2014 had
been provided to the petitioners and not the
joint inspection report dated 3.12.2014. The
aforesaid fact is further fortified by the
letter dated 8.1.2016 issued by the Mining
Inspector to the Public Information Officer,
Directorate of Geology and Mining, Uttar
Pradesh, Lucknow. Hence, it is beyond
doubt that the impugned order dated
4.6.2016 is non-speaking and unreasoned
as none of the contentions of the petitioner
raised in the reply dated 28.11.2015 have
been dealt with and shows complete nonapplication of mind on the part of the
respondent no.2. Even the revisional order
dated 24.4.2019 fails to deal with various
contentions raised by the petitioners in the
revision filed under Rule 78 of the Rules,
1963.
20. In the present case the inquiry
into allegations of illegal mining conducted
by the respondent no.2 would possess the
character of quasi judicial proceedings.
Recording of findings as to illegal mining
being carried out by the petitioners for the
purpose of fixing a financial responsibility
would
certainly
entail
a full-fledged
inquiry, comprising allegation/evidence in
support of the charges coming forward
followed by the case in defense and then
findings arrived at based on the evidence
adduced. Recovery would follow, if the
findings
returned
is
adverse to the
petitioners,
who
were
charged
with
allegations of illegal mining. Having regard
to the character and complexion of
proceedings
in
conjunction
with
the
structure of power conferred by the
Act/Rules, the inevitable conclusion is that,
such
proceedings
are
quasi
judicial
proceedings wherein full play is required to
be given to the rules of natural justice by
the competent authority, the respondent
no.2 in the present case. More so, it is
beyond doubt that the impugned orders,
which have civil consequences can only be
passed after affording opportunity of
hearing to the person concerned in
consonance with the principles of natural
justice.

21. On the failure to comply with
the principles of natural justice the order
passed, cannot be sustained. It is also
incumbent upon the quasi judicial authority
to pass a reasoned and speaking order and
the absence to give reasons cannot be
approved of.
22. This Hon'ble Court in the case
of Ranveer Singh vs. State of U.P. and
Others 2017 (8) ADJ 240, a case which
10 All. Ram Pratap & Ors. Vs. State of U.P..& Ors.
995
pertains to illegal mining and recovery, had
held as under:-

 "33. Once the liability was to be
fastened on the shoulder of petitioner, then
it was the obligation of the State to prove
by way of credible evidence available that
it was the petitioner, who has indulged in
illegal mining and in the said direction,
apart from issuing show-cause notice, all
the evidence that was sought to be relied
upon i.e. the incumbents who have carried
out the search and survey and the
incumbents who have come forward to
depose against petitioner, their names
ought to have been disclosed and they
ought to have been produced to support the
case of State that petitioner in-fact has
indulged in illegal mining. Not only this as
a part of process, petitioner was entitled to
have reasonable opportunity of defending
himself by questioning the veracity of
evidence produced against him and by
adducing his own defence evidence, if any.
Decision maker is bound to act fairly, as
under the scheme of things provided for,
the determination made by him will entail
civil consequences, as qua the person
charged with illegal mining on charges
being proved financial liability would be
shouldered and in contra situation, the
State would be at loss.
 34. Apex Court in the case of Goa
Foundation v. Union of India, 2014 (6)
SCC 590, while dealing with the report of
Shah Commission, constituted for inquiring
illegal mining, in reference of report so
submitted held that prosecution of mining
lease cannot be directed on the basis of
finding in report of Shah Commission, as
before submitting said report, incumbents
have
not
been
provided
with
the
opportunity of being heard and to produce
evidence in their defence and not allowed
the right to cross-examine. In the said case,
Central
Government/State
Government
gave undertaking that no action would be
undertaken on the basis of said finding
with-out undertaking exercise of giving
opportunity of hearing."

23. It would not be out of place to
mention here that as already demonstrated
above both the impugned orders are
unreasoned, non-speaking and have been
passed in a mechanical manner and show
complete non-application of mind on the
part of the authorities concerned. It is
settled law that every administrative or
quasi-judicial order must contain the
reasons. Such reasons go a long way in not
only ensuring that the authority has applied
his mind to the facts and the law, but also
provide the grounds for the aggrieved party
to assail the order in the manner known to
law. In the absence of any reasons, it also
possesses a difficulty for the judicial
authorities to test the correctnessof the
order or in other words, exercise its power
of judicial review. In this context we rely
upon the law laid down by the Hon?ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kranti
Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. Masood Ahmed
Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496.

24. It is also noted that the entire
proceedings were initiated against the
petitioners solely on the basis of a joint
inspection
report
dated
3.12.2014.
Considering that more than eleven years
have elapsed since the said date, no useful
purpose would be served in remitting the
matter back to the respondents for
reconsideration, as the factual situation at
site would no longer be the same as it
existed more than a decade ago. It is well
settled that an order of remand is not to be
passed routinely, as an unwarranted order
of remand only prolongs litigation without
advancing the cause of justice.
996 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
25. Hence, in the above facts and
circumstances the present writ petition is
allowed accordingly, the orders dated
24.4.2019 passed by the Special Secretary,
Geology and Mining, Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow, and 4.6.2016 passed by the
District Magistrate, are hereby set aside.
26. It is further directed that the
amounts deposited by the petitioner no.2
and petitioner no.3 in the present writ
petition in pursuance to the interim orders
passed by this Hon?ble Court, shall be
refunded back to the petitioner no.2 and
petitioner no.3 along with 7% simple
interest per annum from the date said
amount has been deposited till it is paid
within two months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
27. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 996
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

Writ - C No. 23107 of 2025

Committee of Management of Public Inter
College Kerakat District Jaunpur & Anr.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Prakash Chandra Pathak, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Man Mohan Singh, Sudist Kumar

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the District Inspector of Schools was
justified in staying the election of the Committee
of Management on account of a disputed
General Body list and in directing single
operation of the institution's accounts pending
resolution of the membership dispute; and
whether an election held in defiance of the stay
order passed by the District Inspector of Schools
and in violation of the Scheme of Administration
could be recognised ?

HEADNOTE
Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Scope of writ
jurisdiction - Disputed questions of fact -
Election of Committee of Management - Rival
General Body lists - Writ Court does not
ordinarily act as a fact-finding forum where
disputes involve questions of membership,
factual inquiry or appreciation of evidence -
Registration or filing of list under S. 4 Societies
Registration Act, 1860 does not conclusively
determine membership - Until rival claims are
verified, no valid electoral college exists - No
finality attached to rival lists pending decision of
Assistant Registrar - DIOS, in face of disputed
electoral roll and conflicting claims, acted within
jurisdiction in staying election - Election held in
defiance of lawful order is illegal and void and
cannot be recognised - Election was held in
violation of Scheme of Administration which
mandates
holding
election
at
institution
premises under supervision of Observer -Order
of single operation held to be lawful interim
administrative measure under Payment of
Salaries Act, 1971 - Election dated 23.05.2025
declared illegal - Assistant Registrar directed
to decide rival lists and thereafter direct fresh
elections strictly in accordance with law and
Scheme of Administration - Writ petition
dismissed. (Paras 31-46)

HELD The writ Court does not ordinarily act as
a fact-finding forum nor substitute itself for
statutory authorities entrusted with decisionmaking powers, particularly where the dispute
involves questions relating to membership of the
General Body and verification of rival lists. Any
action taken in defiance of a lawful order of a
competent authority is illegal and void and
cannot be recognised in law. Registration or
filing of a list under Section 4 of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 does not, by itself,
conclusively
determine
disputes
regarding
membership.
Until
the
Assistant
Registrar
verifies and decides the rival claims, no valid
electoral college exists upon which an election
can
be
founded.