2025:UHC:9507-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 29TH OCTOBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION (M/B) No. 897 OF 2025 Nauratan and another. …Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners. : Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned counsel. Counsel for the respondents. : Mr. Sunil Khera, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. JUDGMENT : (per Sri G. Narendar, C.J.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The short issue raised for determination is the correctness of the recovery proceedings, despite the pendency of the Revision Petition pending before the State Government. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the Additional District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar has conducted proceedings, and imposed a penalty on the petitioners, vide proceedings dated 03.07.2023. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an Appeal before the Commissioner, Kumaun Division, and the order imposing penalty dated 03.07.2023, passed by the ADM, came to be affirmed by the Commissioner, vide his 1 2025:UHC:9507-DB proceedings dated 27.11.2024. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court, and a learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 06.01.2025, was pleased to relegate the petitioners to avail the alternate remedy of Revision before the State Government. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they have preferred the Revision Petition in January, 2025, and that the revisional authority is yet to take up and consider the interim relief prayed for therein, and despite the pendency of the interim relief, the fifth respondent, by proceedings dated 25.04.2025 and 19.09.2025, has issued the impugned auction proceedings. 4. The recovery proceedings are by one authority of the State, and the consideration of the Revision Petition is by another authority of the State. Despite the pendency and non-consideration, or rather failure to expeditiously consider the interim relief, or the main relief sought for in the Revision Petition, the coercive action, in our considered opinion, is impermissible. The coercive action, if permitted, it would amount to permitting the State itself to present a fait accompli, thereby virtually rendering the pending Revision Petition infructuous. 5. In that view of the matter, the right to revision, being a statutorily conferred right, the authorities, namely the 2 2025:UHC:9507-DB Tehsildar ought to have held its hands, as the Revision is pending before a higher forum, i.e. before the Secretary, Mining, Government of Uttarakhand. 6. In that view of the matter, the instant Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the Tehsildar to hold his hands and we further stay the auction proceedings, pending consideration and disposal of the Revision Petition registered as Civil Revision No. 740/2025. Lastly, the revisional authority (first respondent) shall attempt to expeditiously consider and dispose of Civil Revision No. 740/2025, as expeditiously as possible. 7. Till the above noted Civil Revision is considered and disposed of on merits, the coercive action shall remain stayed. 8. The Writ Petition stands ordered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _______________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. ___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dt: 29th October, 2025 Rahul 3 RAHUL PRAJAPATI Digitally signed by RAHUL PRAJAPATI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e66e61bf4c 848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8A192FCAD 15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE4C28A4898, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI Date: 2025.11.03 13:31:28 +05'30'