# Vinay Prakash Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 468
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-04
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 27340 of 2019
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Manoj Baja
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinay-prakash-shukla-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50675
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law-Constitution of India, 1950-Article
226-Mines & Minerals- Impugned order passed
without any application of mind-Only because the
petitioner had deposited Rs.5 lacs on 28.9.2017 it
had been concluded that the petitioner had done
illegal mining- The notice had St.d that 5436 cubic
meter of sand was excavated whereas the order
St.s that 4302 cubic meters were illegally
excavated- here was neither any inspection nor
was there any report present on the basis of which
order was passed- That Rs.5 lacs were accepted
from the petitioner without any adjudication and
without any quantification of the penalty etc which
was paid by the petitioner on the oral assurance
that compounding would be done and no specific
denial has been made in the counter affidavit-
Amount of Rs.5 lacs, which was taken from the
petitioner be returned to him and interest be paid
on that amount at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of deposit.

Petition partly allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
member of the petitioners appears to be
doubtful.

7. The address of the deponent
mentioned in both the cases with respect to
his relation with the petitioners stinks upon
genuineness. To divulge the real fact,
affidavit of the deponent; Kamas Singh is
necessary. Accordingly, he is required to
file an affidavit explaining his relation,
specifically, with both the petitioners in the
aforementioned writ petitions, within two
weeks, which shall be kept on record by the
office.

8. The Stamp Reporter shall take care
of the fact that in such cases the affidavit be
filed by the petitioner himself/herself or
his/her family member.

9. Here, it is also pertinent that the
stamp reporter will also adhere to the
directions with respect to filing of affidavits
in view of the directions issued by this
Court in the case of Smt. Shabista Praveen
vs. State of U.P. and Another5.

10. Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel
for the petitioner is expected to remain
attentive while verifying affidavits in such
cases.

11. Registrar Compliance is directed to
communicate this order to all concerned for
its compliance forthwith.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 468
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Writ C No. 27340 of 2019

Vinay Prakash Shukla ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Aarushi Khare, Sri Sarvesh Kumar
Pandey, Sri Vinay Kumar Khare (Senior
Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law-Constitution of India, 1950-Article
226-Mines & Minerals- Impugned order passed
without any application of mind-Only because the
petitioner had deposited Rs.5 lacs on 28.9.2017 it
had been concluded that the petitioner had done
illegal mining- The notice had St.d that 5436 cubic
meter of sand was excavated whereas the order
St.s that 4302 cubic meters were illegally
excavated- here was neither any inspection nor
was there any report present on the basis of which
order was passed- That Rs.5 lacs were accepted
from the petitioner without any adjudication and
without any quantification of the penalty etc which
was paid by the petitioner on the oral assurance
that compounding would be done and no specific
denial has been made in the counter affidavit-
Amount of Rs.5 lacs, which was taken from the
petitioner be returned to him and interest be paid
on that amount at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of deposit.

Petition partly allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Anant Narayan Mishra Vs. U.O.I. & ors. 2020
(3) ADJ 466

2. Ranjit Thakur Vs U.O.I. & ors. 1987(4) SCC 611

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.
&
Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.)

1. Instructions filed today by learned
Standing Counsel be kept on record.
8 All. Vinay Prakash Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
469

2. In pursuance of an e-tender notice
dated 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 dated 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 dated 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 dated
22.11.2017.

4. Pursuant to the order dated
22.11.2017 passed in Writ-C No. 55531 of
2017, an order was passed on 25.1.2018,
wherein, it was alleged that since the
petitioner had accepted that he had done
illegal mining by depositing a penalty of
Rs.5 lacs, it had to be concluded that the
petitioner had done illegal mining. In
between the passing of the order dated
25.1.2018
and
the
issuing
of
the
notices/orders
dated
31.5.2018
and
18.8.2018 for depositing of Rs.38,88,000/-
towards royalty, the petitioner had also
filed an application on 6.2.2018 stating that
the order was a non- speaking one and that
it was based upon no inspection report etc.

5. Aggrieved by the order dated
25.1.2018 and the notice for depositing the
penalty etc. dated 31.5.2018, the instant
writ petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has argued that respondents have acted in a
most mala fide manner. There were two
notices issued on 25.6.2017 and 5.7.2017
and both were numbered as Letter No. 356.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states
that without any inspection and without any
application of mind, notices were sent.
Further, it has been submitted that after the
notices were sent, an assurance was given
to the petitioner that if he deposited Rs.5
lacs, then the matter would be compounded
and no further action would be taken and
therefore, the petitioner had deposited the
Rs.5 lacs on 28.9.2017 on the basis of an
oral assurance given by respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
states that petitioner on the oral assurance
had deposited the money and had therefore,
virtually been duped of Rs.5 lacs as it was
not even taken into account while passing
the impugned order dated 25.1.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further
states that the notice dated 25.6.2017 had
stated that illegal mining was to the extent
of 5436 cubic meters but the order had
stated that the illegal mining was to the
tune of 4320 cubic meters. It is further
submitted by learned counsel for petitioner
that categorically in the reply, which the
470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner had given in pursuance to the
notice dated 25.6.2017 with regard to
illegal mining, he had stated that he had
only carved out a passage through the plot
in which it was alleged that illegal mining
had taken place, but this aspect of the
matter was not even remotely considered.

8. With regard to the depositing of
Rs.5 lacs on the oral assurance of the
respondents, mention has been made by the
petitioner in paragraph nos.30 to 32 of the
writ
petition.
They
are
thus
being
reproduced herein as under:-

"30. That the petitioner has
deposited Rs. 5 lacs on the assurance given
by respondent no.3 that matter will be
compounded under Rule 75 and notices
dated 19.6.2017 and 25.6.2017 will be
dropped.

31. That the petitioner has
already paid the price of the mineral and
has not exceeded the permitted quantity
and has extracted less quantity then the
quantity permitted, therefore, the demand is
illegal.

32. That instead of considering
the petitioner's representations, a notice
was sent on 18.3.2019 by the respondent
no.2. A copy of the notice dated 18.3.2019
is being filed as Annexure No.14 to this writ
petition."

9. In reply, Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
has relied upon the counter affidavit and
the instructions, which have been produced
by him today.

10. Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel states that
when the petitioner had admitted that illegal
mining had been done and had deposited
Rs.5 lacs then there was no other option but
to conclude that illegal mining had taken
place. The other notice dated 25.6.2017 with
regard to non submission of environment
clearance certificate and non installation of
CCTV camera etc., learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel has given a statement on
the basis of instructions received from the
Mining Officer that the notice was dropped
and no action was taken.

11. Upon a pointed question being
asked as to what reply had been given by
respondents with regard to paragraph nos.30
to 32 of the writ petition, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel drew the attention of
the Court to paragraph no.12 of the counter
affidavit. For convenience, paragraph no.12
of the counter affidavit is being reproduced
hereas under:-

"12.
That
the
contents
of
paragraph nos. 30, 31, 32, 33 of the writ
petition are not admitted as stated, hence
denied. In reply thereto, it is submitted that
the petitioner admitted the allegation of
illegal mining and deposited Rs.5,00,000/-
through
Challan
No.MO10080
dated
28.9.2017. The petitioner received MM-11
from office of the District Magistrate,
Kaushambi for transportation of 5436 cubic
meter sand upto 19.6.2017. The notices were
rightly issued to the petitioner."

12. A perusal of paragraph no.12 of
the counter affidavit shows that allegations
made in paragraph nos.30, 31, 32 & 33
have not been denied in so many words and
only a vague denial had been made. In fact,
it has been admitted that the petitioner was
made to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- even before
the notices were sent.

13. In the Court, however, the Mining
Officer, Sri Ajeet Kumar Pandey was
present with the instructions and he has
8 All. Krishna Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
471
stated that Rs.5 lacs were not taken towards
compounding but in fact they were taken
towards the royalty and penalty for illegal
mining.

14. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, we are of the view that the
impugned order dated 25.1.2018 was passed
without any application of mind. Only
because the petitioner had deposited Rs.5 lacs
on 28.9.2017 it had been concluded that the
petitioner had done illegal mining. Further,
we find that the notice had stated that 5436
cubic meter of sand was excavated whereas
the order states that 4302 cubic meters were
illegally excavated. All this goes to show that
there was no application of mind. Still further
we find that there was neither any inspection
nor was there any report present on the basis
of which order was passed. Apart from the
fact that the order is based on no evidence,
we are also pained to find that Rs.5 lacs were
accepted from the petitioner without any
adjudication and without any quantification
of the penalty etc. This amount as per the
learned counsel for petitioner was paid by the
petitioner on the oral assurance that
compounding would be done but no specific
denial has been made in the counter affidavit.

15. The very fact that the money was
taken prior to the adjudication definitely
gives credence to the submission made by
learned counsel for petitioner that the Rs.5
lacs were taken by the department on an
assurance that compounding would be
done. This reflects a deplorable state of
affairs in the mining department.

16. For the reasons stated above, we
do consider that the impugned order dated
25.1.2018, which was followed by the
order dated 31.5.2018 cannot be sustained
in the eyes of law and therefore, they have
to be quashed. The subsequent notice dated
18.8.2018 is also being quashed. Before the
adjudication take place, we also direct that
the amount of Rs.5 lacs, which was taken
from the petitioner be returned to him and
interest be paid on that amount at the rate
of 6% per annum from the date of deposit.

17. Needless to say that the
respondents may re-adjudicate the matter
on the basis of the reply given by the
petitioner within a period of one month
from the presentation of certified copy of
this order after taking into account
whatever local inspection etc. was done
before the notice dated 25.6.2017 was
issued.

18. With the aforesaid directions, the
writ petition stands partly allowed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 471
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 35884 of 2019

Krishna Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Amol Kumar, Shivanshu Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Piyush Pathak, R.P. Shukla, Sharad
Pathak, Sukhdeo Singh, Vidya Bhushan
Pandey

Held -
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Sections 4(3) &
16 - Eviction of son from parental house -
Jurisdiction
of
Tribunal
and
District