HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 35496 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard Sri Devbrat Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State- respondents. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the respondent no.2-District Magistrate/Collector, Mirzapur. 3. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that against the order impugned, there is a statutory remedy of appeal under Rule 79 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 before the Divisional Commissioner. 4. From the perusal of instruction supplied by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, which is taken on record, it appears that a detailed notice has been given to the petitioner on 11.09.2025 specifying the charges against the petitioner for illegal mining. The relevant extract of the notice dated 11.09.2025 is reproduced herein below:- "राजस्व िवभाग व खिनज िवभाग, मीरजापुर की संयुक्त जाँच आख्या िदनांक 28.06.2025 में उिल्लिखत है िक जाँच के दौरान श्रीमती िशव कु मारी के पक्ष में स्वीकृ त क्षेत्र में मौके पर खनन/पिरवहन कायर् बन्द पाया गया तथा सीमा स्तम्भ एवं साइन बोडर् स्थािपत पाये गये, स्वीकृ त क्षेत्र को पत्रावली में उिल्लिखत भू-िनदेर्शांक से िचिन्हत करते हुए क्षेत्र की जाँच/पैमाईश की गयी। जाँच के दौरान श्रीमती िशव कु मारी देवी द्वारा अपने स्वीकृ त क्षेत्र के बाहर पूरब िदशा में िपलर सं० B से C के मध्य ईमारती पत्थर सैण्ड स्टोन (िगट्टी/बोल्डर) का अवैध खनन कर पिरवहन िकये जाने के साक्ष्य पाये गये, खनन कायर् से बने िपट्स के भू-िनदेर्शांक/पैमाईश का िववरण िनम्नवत् हैः- Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devbrat Mukherjee Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Smt Shivkumari Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) िववरण अक्षांश एवं देशांतर िपट्स का क्षेत्रफल (वगर् मीटर में) िपट्स की औसत गहराई (मीटर में) खनन कर पिरवहन की गयी उपखिनज की मात्रा (घन मीटर में) स्वीकृ त क्षेत्र के बाहर का िपट्टस िजसमें ईमारती पत्थर सैण्ड स्टोन (िगट्टी/बोल्डर) का अवैध खनन कर पिरवहन िकया जाना पाया गया A250 0'45.50"N 82 042'49.87E B250 0'47.47"N 82 042'50.83E C250 0'46.92"N 82 042'52.06E D250 0'45.87"N 82 042'51.73E E250 0'45.48"N 82 042'51.73E F250 0'44.92"N 82 042'51.18E 2846 1.8 5122.8 5. From the aforesaid notice, it is evident that details about the area over which petitioner was found doing illegal mining has been specified in the notice. The question as to whether the area specified in the notice, extracted above, comes within the lease of the petitioner or beyond the lease of the petitioner is a question of fact. Further the question as to whether the petitioner was doing illegal mining over the area described in the notice, extracted above, is also a question of fact which can be determined only on the basis of evidence on record. 6. In such view of the fact, we find that since the issues which are to be adjudicated in the instant case are the disputed question of fact which can very well be looked into and determined by the Appellate Authority on the basis of evidence on record, therefore, we dismiss the writ petition on the WRIC No. 35496 of 2025 2 ground of alternative remedy. 7. However, if petitioner prefers any appeal against the impugned order within a period of one month from today, the Appellate Authority shall decide the same on merit without entering into the question of limitation. October 10, 2025 Sattyarth WRIC No. 35496 of 2025 3 (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad