2025:UHC:3494-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 620 OF 2024 06TH MAY, 2025 Ankit Jain …… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …… Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Tiwari and Mr. Nikhil Bhatt, learned counsel Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Sunil Khera, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State : Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 / GMVNL The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri G. Narendar) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent-GMVNL, and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. 2) The petitioner is before the Court praying for the following reliefs : 1 2025:UHC:3494-DB “i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the Office Order dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure No. 23 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No. 1 whereby the mining lot No. 14/8 situated at Asan, Tehsil Vikasnagar, District Dehradun allotted in auction to the petitioner has been directed to be surrendered. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 to issue a fresh mining permission in favour of the petitioner in terms of re-survey and re-demarcation report dated 25.03.2022 for a target extraction of 1,18,800 tones as recommended after adjusting his dues, security deposit and advance payments made by the petitioner, inter alia, to refund the entire amount deposited by the petitioner as security deposit, advance installment of payment and royalty along with an interest of 18% per annum till the date of actual payment. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to adjust the royalty in the account of the petitioner in e-ravanna portal in his fresh mining permission, if so granted. iv) Issue any other, further writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. v) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.” 3) It is pertinent to note at this stage itself that the petitioner in the name of the “proprietary firm” had preferred an earlier writ petition registered as Writ Petition 2 2025:UHC:3494-DB (M/S) No. 2508 of 2022, and in the said writ petition the petitioner has sought following reliefs : i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding / directing the respondent no. 3 to demarcate the mining area by fixing the pillars mentioned in the e-tender, i.e. 32 hectares and thereafter permit the petitioner to excavate the minor minerals as per the e-tender and M.O.U. executed between the parties and in furtherance thereof. OR IN ALTERNATIVE II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding / directing the respondent no. 3 to pay an amount of Rs.94,23,750 + 1,88,74,500 + 73,29,584 total amount of Rs.3,56,27,834/- to the petitioner minus minor minerals excavated by the petitioner from October 2021 to December 2021 along with interest from the date of making the payment by the petitioner to the respondent no. 3. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding / directing an inquiry against the concerned official of Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. and Department of Geology & Mining, Uttarakhand for committing fraud against the petitioner.” 4) The instant petition is preferred in the personal name of the proprietor. 3 2025:UHC:3494-DB 5) The facts, in brief, are that the third respondent issued a publication inviting bids for allotment of a mining lot No. 14/8, measuring 32 Hectares, with the proposed quantity of 3,00,000 tons of minor mineral. That the invitation for bids was in capacity of “a contractor” to excavate and transport the mineral. The petitioner was declared the highest bidder for a tender amount of Rs.7,53,90,000/-. That pursuant to the declaration of petitioner as highest bidder, the third respondent vide letter dated 20.11.2020, directed the petitioner to deposit certain amounts as a first installment and another amount as the secondary deposit. The said amounts came to be deposited on 23.11.2020, and a Memorandum of Understanding was executed between the third respondent and the petitioner, and the work order dated 07.10.2021 came to be issued. The work order was issued after a gap of about a year and the amounts deposited by the petitioner remained non-remunerative and thus depriving him of the fruits of his investment. That one of the reasons for the non-commencement of the work was the lack of environmental sanction, and it is his contention that the third respondent, in absence of such a sanction, had no right to issue such an advertisement calling for bids to excavate the mineral from the mining 4 2025:UHC:3494-DB lot No. 14/8. Despite this inherent lack of legal sanction, which goes to the root of the matter, the petitioner claims that he has worked the area for some time and, thereafter, it appears that the State by its proceedings dated 12.01.2024 was pleased to direct the surrender of the mining lot allotted to the third respondent. Aggrieved, the petitioner instituted Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2508 of 2022, and a co-ordinate bench, headed by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice, after appreciating the facts, and the various contentions raised, was pleased to hold in Para 5, as under: “5. A perusal of the petition shows that the nature of disputes raised in the writ petition would require determination of facts about which there may be controversy. Since the petitioner has entered into an agreement which contains arbitration clause as well, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. We dismiss the same, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail of its remedies under the arbitration agreement. We have not examined the merits of the dispute raised by the petitioner.” Consequently, the co-ordinate bench was pleased to dismiss the writ petition by reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek for remedies in terms of the MOU, and more particularly, the arbitration clause incorporated in the MOU. 5 2025:UHC:3494-DB 6) The order came to be passed on 20.10.2022. After the passage of a couple of years, the present writ petition is preferred and is sought to be filed in the individual name of the proprietor, while the earlier round of litigation was initiated in the name of the proprietary concern/firm itself. 7) Be that as it may, we have called upon the counsel to satisfy this Court regarding the maintainability of the relief sought. The first prayer is for cancellation of the order directing surrender of the mining lease allotted by the Government in favour of the third respondent which is a local authority, and pursuant to which the third respondent has surrendered the mining lot. The petitioner is neither a lessee, nor a sub-lessee, nor an applicant over the mining area identified as mining lot No. 14/8 situated at Asan, Tehsil Vikasnagar, District Dehradun. The Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules prescribe a particular mode and method for grant of the mining rights, or mining leases. The fact that the petitioner is not even an applicant is not denied. The fact that he is engaged as a mere contractor to carry out the excavation work is also not in dispute. Despite these admitted facts, the petitioner has sought to impugn the proceedings, directing the third respondent to surrender the mining lot. That the 6 2025:UHC:3494-DB petitioner being neither an allottee, nor a lessee, the question of impugning the direction to a lessee to surrender a mining lease, in our considered opinion, is without any basis. 8) That apart, the next prayer to allot the mining lease in lieu of the deposits made by him before the third party as the third respondent in the absence of an application, in our considered opinion, is wholly unsustainable and is contrary to the provisions of the Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules. That apart, some of the reliefs sought are a repeat of the reliefs sought on the earlier occasion, and the reliefs sought in the instant writ petition are admittedly premised on the same cause of action which in our opinion is a clear case of abuse of the process of the court. 9) In that view of the matter, filing of the instant writ petition without disclosing earlier round of litigation, in our considered opinion, is an attempt to practice fraud on the Court. 10) In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the instant writ petition is wholly unsustainable and requires to be rejected and is, accordingly, rejected with exemplary cost quantified at 7 2025:UHC:3494-DB Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only) to be deposited by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Cost shall be deposited into the account of the Uttarakhand High Court Advocates Association Fund. In the event the amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, the Registrar General shall take steps to recover the same. ________________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. ____________ ALOK MAHRA, J. Dt: 06th MAY, 2025 Negi 8 HIMANS HU NEGI Digitally signed by HIMANSHU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13aaf1 16e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC51 A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18DB 2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2025.05.14 10:27:11 +05'30'