Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85588-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14711 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Akhilanand Mishra And Ashish Kumar Tiwari Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anup Shukla,Devansh Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Mirzapur exercising his powers under Rule 58 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021. The petitioner has also been asked to pay royalty for the minerals extracted in illegal mining. The petitioner has the remedy to file appeal under Rule 79 of the Rules, 2021 and Revision under Rule 80 of the Rules, 2021. The counsel for the petitioner pleads that alternative remedy is not a bar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the petitioner may not be relegated to the remedy of appeal or revision under Rule 79 and 80 of the Rules, 2021. Apart from the merits of the case, the counsel for the petitioner argues that the order dated 16.04.2025 has been passed without considering the objections of the petitioner and the recital in the order dated 16.04.2025 that the petitioner had not filed his objections are not correct as the objections were sent by registered post and were received in the office of District Magistrate, Mirzapur. It has been argued that the order dated 16.04.2025 is in violation of principles of the natural justice, therefore, it is not a case for denying the petitioner hearing under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and relegating him to the remedy of appeal or revision. It has been further argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition once entertained by a Court cannot be dismissed on grounds of alternative remedy and the petition was entertained by this Court by order dated 09.05.2025 whereby this Court had directed the Standing Counsel to obtain instructions on the plea of the petitioner that his objections were received in the office of the District Magistrate but not considered while passing the order dated 16.04.2025. The Standing Counsel has received instructions and on the basis of his instructions states that the reply sent by the petitioner was not received in the office of the District Magistrate. The remedy under Article 226 is a discretionary remedy. The issues raised by the petitioner so far as violation of principles of natural justice are concerned can also be decided by the appellate or revisional authority under Rule 79 and 80 of the Rules, 2021. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the petition was entertained for hearing on 09.05.2025 is also not acceptable. A reading of the order dated 09.05.2025 shows that the order does not indicate any consideration of the plea of the petitioner. Apart from the aforesaid, through order dated 09.05.2025, this Court had only asked the Standing Counsel to obtain instructions on the plea of the petitioner that his objections were sent to the District Magistrate and received in his office. The instructions received by the Standing Counsel have been noted above. The issue as to whether the petitioner had filed his objections to the show cause notice is a disputed question of fact which are not to be decided in petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed on grounds of availability of alternative statutory remedy to the petitioner. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Vipasha Digitally signed by :- VIPASHA MUKHERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad