2026:UHC:3169-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMB/277/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. 1. Mr. Raghav Singhal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/notice dated 05.12.2025 issued by respondent no. 3, whereby a penalty of Rs. 20,32,128/- has been impo9sed upon the petitioners and the stone crusher has been sealed (contained as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to de-seal the premises of M/s Raj Stone Crusher. 4. Learned State Counsel has produced in Court Order No. 433/[kuu lgk0/2025-26 dated 27.02.2026 passed by District Magistrate, Haridwar, whereby petitioner was directed to deposit ₹20,32,128/- as penalty for illegal mining of river bed material from the premises of his stone crusher. He further submits that Annexure 1 to the writ petition, which is impugned by the petitioner, is in fact a notice and the final order was passed on 27.02.2026, referred to above. 2026:UHC:3169-DB 5. Learned State Counsel further submits that since order impugned was passed under Rule 14 of Uttarakhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2021, which also provides for remedy of appeal under Rule 15. Thus, he submits that petitioner has a statutory remedy, therefore, the writ petition would not be maintainable. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the limitation for filing such appeal had expired, therefore, petitioner has become remediless. 7. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that the limitation is prescribed is 60 days, which will be counted from 27.02.2026, when the final order was passed. 8. In view of the submission made by learned State Counsel, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file appeal under the relevant Statutory provisions before the Commissioner, Garhwal Division. If he files appeal within three weeks from today, the same shall be heard and decided on merit expeditiously, within six months. For a period of six months or till decision on the appeal, whichever is earlier, no recovery shall be made from the petitioner (Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 27.04.2026 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f98 02a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5 C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.04.27 07:26:48 -07'00' 2026:UHC:3169-DB