Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3437 (UTT)

JASPAL SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPMB/257/2026 · 2026-04-15

Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Subhash Upadhyay

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:2652-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 15TH APRIL, 2026 WRIT PETITION (M/B) No. 257 OF 2026 Jaspal Singh …….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Balvinder Singh, learned counsel. Counsel for the respondents : Sri R.S. Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General with Sri B.S. Parihar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 24.05.2025 passed by respondent No. 2 by which penalty for illegal mining has been imposed against the petitioner and the consequent recovery proceedings by way of Recovery Citation dated 23.07.2025. 2. Admittedly, the order, imposing penalty dated 24.05.2025, is under challenge at the behest of the petitioner before the Commissioner of the Division. In the appeal, an interim order was also passed in favour of the petitioner on 04.09.2025 till the next date. It appears that that for one reason or the other, on subsequent dates, the interim order could not be extended. Now 15.04.2025, i.e. today’s date is fixed for consideration of the Stay Extension Application of the petitioner. 3. We dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Commission of the Division, before whom the appeal of the petitioner is pending, to decide the Stay Extension Application. In case, the Application is adjourned for any reason, it is desirable 2026:UHC:2652-DB 2 that the same be decided within next two weeks and until then, the recovery proceedings in pursuance of the impugned citation shall remain in abeyance. In case the Stay Extension Application is decided and the order goes against the petitioner, then the interim protection granted to the petitioner shall be of no avail and it shall be open to the petitioner to avail legal remedies against the order of the Commissioner, if so advised. 4. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. _____________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J. ___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dt: 15th April, 2026 Rathour PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Digitally signed by PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e3aeb1097d17 dbb53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40CC6179B8E010 331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2026.04.16 10:53:08 +05'30'