Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23154 (ALL)

M/S ASHISH ENTERPRISES v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

CMRA/56/2025 · 2025-03-02

Anjani Kumar Mishra, Jayant Banerji

Review Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29326-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 56 of 2025 Applicant :- M/S Ashish Enterprises Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Devansh Misra,Kartikeya Saran Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. 1. Heard Shri Devansh Misra for the applicant. 2. The grounds urged before us are quoted herein below: "(a) Because the findings recorded in the order dated 06.12.2024 suffers from an error apparent on the face of record, inasmuch as Rule 58 and 60 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 does not empower the District Magistrate to forfeit the security deposit rather it allows only levy of interest on the defaulted amount. (c) Because the liability of the applicant/review petitioner is only to the extent of the default in payment of fourth installment, if at all any. The excess amount, which has been deposited by the applicant/review petitioner towards security deposit ought to have been refunded in terms of Rule 50 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, which categorically stipulates that after determination of a mining lease, the excess security deposit if not required to be applied for any other purposes shall be refunded to the lessee within a period of six months from the date of determination." 3. On a pointed query by the Court, Shri Devansh Misra, who has appeared for the review-petitioner before us is not in a position to state as to whether these aspects were actually argued before the Court wherein the judgment under review was passed. In the absence of such submission, it cannot be said that the judgment suffers from error apparent on the face of the record. 4. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the review petition contains no ground which would justify review of the judgment. The review application is found to be without merit and is dismissed. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 A. V. Singh Digitally signed by :- AJAY VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad