Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21388-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3543 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Special Secy. Deptt. Of Geology And Mining U.P. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Dwivedi,Himanshu Kamboj Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition bearing Writ C No.2886 of 2025 seeking similar reliefs albeit against a separate order passed in the context of a separate three months permit for digging pond wherein while admitting the revision, the interim relief had been rejected by the Revisional Authority. The said writ petition was disposed of on 25.03.2025 in the following terms:- "Heard. The petitioner was granted a three months permit for digging pond. An order was passed by the District Magistrate about misuse of FORM E MM-11. The said order had been challenged in an appeal which was rejected, and thereafter, the matter was raised in a revision before the Special Secretary, Department of Mining, State of U.P., where the said revision bearing number 33(R)/G & M(U.P.)/2025 (Sushil Kumar Singh Vs. Divisional Commissioner Vindhyachal Division, District- Mirzapur and others) is still pending and an application for interim relief was filed, as the amount sought to be recovered was about Rupees Nine Crores and odd, which has been rejected. The contention is that there is no consideration of the relevant aspects and parameters for grant of rejection of interim relief. The petitioner does not have the means to pay such a huge amount. The revision itself should be decided at the earliest. We find, prima facie, merit in the contention. Let the revision itself be decided positively within a period of three months by a reasoned and speaking order. Till disposal of the revision, as it is a statutory revision under Rule 80 of the U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021, the recovery on the basis of the orders impugned in the revision shall remain in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Standing Counsel to communicate our order to revisional authority." 3. The facts and issues involved in this writ petition are same though in this case revision number is different bearing No.32(R)/G & M(U.P.)/2025 (Sushil Kumar Singh vs. Divisional Commissioner Vindhyachal Division, District- Mirzapur and Others). We, therefore, dispose of this petition also on the same terms meaning thereby the petitioner shall be entitled to the observations/directions contained in the said order on the same terms. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 16.4.2025 -Piyush- Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench