Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93256-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18014 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Aman Brick Field, Through Its Proprietor Shri Javed Ali Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu Srivastava,Madan Lal Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. Heard the counsel for the petitioner. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 8.1.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Kaushambi rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Rule 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1921') and black-listing the petitioner for a period of two years. The petitioner has the alternative remedy under Rule 79 to file an appeal against the impugned order. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 8.1.2025 so far as it black-lists the petitioner is without jurisdiction as the order has been passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner and an order of black-listing could not have been passed in proceedings instituted on the application of the petitioner filed under Rule 30 of the Rules, 1921 for surrender of his lease. Even if the plea of the petitioner that the order dated 8.1.2025 has been passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner is accepted, the issue can be raised by the petitioner in appeal filed under Rule 79 of the Rules, 1921. So far as the plea of the petitioner that an order of black-listing could not be passed while considering an application filed under Rule 30 of the Rules, 1921, therefore, the impugned order so far as it black-lists the petitioner is without jurisdiction is also not acceptable. The order is administrative in nature and the proceedings are also administrative in nature. Further, a perusal of the order dated 8.1.2025 discloses that an application under Rule 30 of the Rules, 1921 was filed by the petitioner after notices were issued under Rule 59 demanding the balance royalty. The order black-listing the petitioner has been passed under Section 61(2) of the Rules, 1921. In any case, the aforesaid plea can also be raised before the appellate authority under Rule 79 of the Rules, 1921. The grounds raised by the petitioner are not sufficient to take cognizance under Article 226 by-passing the alternative remedy of appeal under Rule 79 of the Rules, 1921. The reliefs prayed by the petitioner are rejected. However, in the interest of justice, it is directed that if the petitioner files an appeal under Rule 79 within 30 days from today, the appellate authority shall hear and decide the same on merits. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 Satyam Digitally signed by :- SATYAM AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad