2025:UHC:5744-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY Writ Petition (M/B) No. 461 of 2025 M/s Creative Minerals India Pvt. Ltd. --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocates:- Mr. Rajiv R. Raj, Advocate assisted Mr. Anugrah Singh and Mr. Chandra Prakash, Advocates for the petitioner Mr. Sachin Mohan Singh Mehta, Brief Holder for the State -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari) 1. Petitioner has challenged order dated 03.08.2024, passed by Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue), Haridwar, whereby he has been asked to deposit Rs. 16,80,177/- as penalty for stone dust, stored near railway track. 2. Petitioner contends that he never stored stone dust near the railway track nor the stone dust belonged to him. He submits that stone dust was not found within the premises of the petitioner and further that petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity of hearing while passing the order. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order is unsustainable. 3. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that impugned order refers to a notice and petitioner failed to give reply to the notice. He further submits that the order impugned was passed under provisions of Uttarakhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Illegal Transport and Illegal Storage) Rules, 2021, 1 2025:UHC:5744-DB therefore, he has the remedy of appeal under Rule 15 of the said Rules. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the limitation for filing appeal is only 60 days and the impugned order was served upon the petitioner in the month of September, 2024 and petitioner, immediately, thereafter moved a representation to the Additional Collector on 09.09.2024, however the same is not decided. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that Additional Collector became functus officio after passing the order and the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file an appeal. 6. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition with liberty to petitioner to file appeal. If petitioner files appeal within ten days from today, the same shall be heard and decided on merits, ignoring the delay. 7. Petitioner would also be at liberty to move application for stay of the impugned order before the Appellate Authority. For a period of one month or till disposal of the stay application filed by petitioner whichever is later, no coercive action shall be taken against petitioner pursuant to impugned order. _______________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. ____________________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dt: 4th July, 2025 Mahinder 2 MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f0 31a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC462 6D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.07.04 17:25:10 +05'30' 2025:UHC:5744-DB 3