HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 14267 of 2019 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner by means of present writ petition has prayed for following reliefs: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.01.2019 passed by the respondent no.1 in Revision No.11(R)/VSM/2019, as contained in Annexure No.24 to the writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notices dated 27.09.2018, 16.10.2018, 06.11.2018, 29.11.2018 and 13.12.2018 issued by the respondent no.2 as contained in Annexure nos. 11,13,15,16 and 19 to the writ petition. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the summon dated 04.12.2018 issued by the respondent no.3, as contained in Annexure No.18 to the writ petition. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to take a decision on the representations of the petitioner, dated 31.07.2018, 17.10.2018, 26.10.2018 and 18.12.2018 as contained in Annexure Nos.10, 12, 14 and 21 to the writ petition. (v) Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 and 2 to treat the lease of the petitioner as terminated/determined in pursuance to the notices of the petitioner, as per the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. (vi) Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Malhotra, Syed Mohd. Fazal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Deep Builders .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to refund the amount of Rs. 2,51,76,870/- towards the Pratibhuti and Rs.60,90,752 towards the difference of amount deposited by the petitioner." 3. It appears that several demand notices dated 27.09.2018A, 16.10.2018, 06.11.2018, 29.11.2018 & 18.12.2018 have been issued, by which royalty has been demanded from the petitioner and in case of non payment of royalty it is stated in the notices that the proceeding for recovery of the aforesaid amount shall be initiated as arrears of land revenue. The aforesaid notices which in fact direct the petitioner to deposit the royalty, has been assailed by the petitioner by filing revision under Rule 78 of U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 which is registered as Revision No.11(R)/VSM/2019. The said Revision of the petitioner has been dismissed. 4. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the Revisional Authority is without application of mind inasmuch as the same is non speaking. He submits that none of the grounds raised by the petitioner in the revision, have been considered and decided by the Revisional Authority in passing the revisional order. It is submitted that the revisional order cannot be sustained in law. 5. Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel submits that there is no illegality in the notices and therefore, the revision has rightly been dismissed by the Revisional Authority. 6. Be that as it may, the only finding which has been recorded by the Revisional Authority is reproduced herein below: "िनगरानी को िवस्तारपूवर्क सुना गया तथा िनगरानी के साथ संलग्न अिभलेखों का अवलोकन िकया गया। िनगरानीकतार् द्वारा अनुबन्ध में विणत समयान्तगर्त देय िकश्त जमा न िकये जाने के कारण िजलािधकारी, द्वारा नोिटस/आदेश िनगर्त िकये गये है जो िनयमानुसार है। उपरोक्तानुसार िनगरानी ग्राह्यता के स्तर पर ही िनरस्त की जाती है। वाद आवश्यक कायर्वाही हेतु पत्रावली दािखल दपतर हो। डॉ रोशन जैकव) िवशेष सिचव।" 7. From the aforesaid finding, it is evident that no reason whatsoever has been assigned by the Revisional Authority while rejecting the revision of the petitioner. Accordingly, we are of the view that the order passed by the Revisional Authority in Revision no.11(R)/VSM/2019 cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to WRIC No. 14267 of 2019 2 the Revisional Authority to decide the Revision no.11(R)/VSM/2019 afresh expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order in accordance with law. September 25, 2025 Mohit WRIC No. 14267 of 2019 3 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad