HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 35080 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kartikeya Saran, Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Additional Chief Standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 01.03.2025 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Prayagraj and the order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Prayagraj respectively by which the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs.1,03,32,630/- for doing illegal mining adjacent to his plot which has been allotted to the petitioner for mining. 3. Challenge has been laid on the ground that the orders impugned are without application of mind and non-speaking inasmuch as the orders do not reflect as to how the petitioner is guilty of committing illegal mining. It is submitted that no reason whatsoever has been assigned in the orders recording the finding that the petitioner has done illegal mining. The impugned orders are based on no evidence on record and in such view of the fact, they cannot be sustained. 4. Sri Kartikeya Saran, Additional Advocate General on the other hand submits that it is evident from the impugned order that the elaborate reason has been recorded by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Prayagraj and District Magistrate, Prayagraj in concluding that the petitioner has committed illegal mining and the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Singh, Ashish Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Sarita Construction Company .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) petitioner is liable to pay the aforesaid amount as penalty. 5. Be that as it may we have perused the impugned orders and we find that neither the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Prayagraj nor the District Magistrate, Prayagraj has recorded any finding based on any evidence on record to the effect that the petitioner has committed illegal mining. The orders are cryptic and without application of mind and in such view of the fact, the same cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders with liberty to the respondent No.3-District Magistrate, Prayagraj to pass the fresh order strictly in accordance with law after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after supplying the materials which the respondent no.3 wants to rely upon against the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. October 7, 2025 SS WRIC No. 35080 of 2025 2 (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad