Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 98570 (ALL)

ZAHAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/33142/2025 · 2025-09-18

Amitabh Kumar Rai, Saral Srivastava

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 33142 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Jhansi (Finance & Revenue)/Prescribed Authority (Minerals), Jhansi by which he has imposed a penalty of Rs.2,27,700/- upon the petitioner. 3. It is evident from the impugned order that the Additional District Magistrate, Jhansi (Finance & Revenue)/Prescribed Authority (Minerals), Jhansi has directed the Tehsildar, Sadar, District Jhansi to supply the copy of the impugned order to the petitioner personally. 4. The petitioner has only made a casual statement in the writ petition that the petitioner has not been served the copy of the impugned order. 5. The question as to whether the Tehsildar, Sadar, District Jhansi has served any copy of the impugned order upon the petitioner or not in compliance of the impugned order dated 11.10.2013 is a question of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is an inordinate delay of about 12 years in filing the writ petition, and the petitioner in order to avoid inordinate delay has approached this Court against the recovery citation dated 26.08.2025 issued to the petitioner. 6. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Himanshu Srivastava, Madan Lal Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Zahar Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) respondents that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Rule 79 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021. 7. Since the petitioner has approached this Court after about 12 years, therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Rule 79 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021, if so advised. September 19, 2025 SS WRIC No. 33142 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad