Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition, Relegates Petitioners to Appeal Under Rule 15 of Uttarakhand Minerals Rules, 2021, with 15-Day Stay on Penalty for Illegal Storage of Minor Minerals

Court’s Decision:

The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a penalty imposed under Rule 14(5)(a) of the Uttarakhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation, and Storage) Rules, 2021. The Court directed the petitioners to file an appeal under Rule 15 before the concerned Commissioner. The Court also granted a temporary relief by staying recovery for 15 days to allow the petitioners to file their appeal.

Facts:

The petitioners had been penalized by the District Magistrate for the illegal storage of minor minerals on their plot. A penalty of Rs. 3,88,080/- was imposed by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, on 23.07.2024, under Rule 14(5)(a) of the Uttarakhand Minerals Rules, 2021. The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the penalty order in the High Court.

Issues:

• Whether the writ petition was maintainable, or whether the petitioners should have pursued an appeal under Rule 15 of the Uttarakhand Minerals Rules, 2021.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioners sought relief from the penalty imposed by the District Magistrate, claiming it was unjustified and challenging the legality of the order dated 23.07.2024. They argued the penalty was imposed without sufficient grounds, and they approached the High Court for redressal.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The State raised a preliminary objection, stating that the petitioners had a clear remedy available through an appeal under Rule 15 of the Uttarakhand Minerals Rules, 2021. According to the respondents, the petitioners should have approached the Commissioner of the concerned division, as per the prescribed appellate mechanism.

Analysis of the Law:

Rule 14(5)(a) of the Uttarakhand Minerals Rules provides for penalties in cases of illegal storage of minerals. Additionally, Rule 15 explicitly lays down the appeal procedure, stating that an appeal can be made to the Commissioner within 60 days of the order.

Precedent Analysis:

The Court relied on the statutory scheme under the Uttarakhand Minerals Rules, which provides a specific appellate procedure. No other precedents were cited during the proceedings, as the court’s focus remained on the applicability of the rules governing illegal mining and the appellate process.

Court’s Reasoning:

The Court found no ambiguity in the rules, which clearly allow for an appeal to the Commissioner under Rule 15. It emphasized that when a statutory appeal is available, a writ petition is not maintainable unless exceptional circumstances exist, which the petitioners failed to demonstrate. Hence, the Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioners to file an appeal within the stipulated time.

Conclusion:

The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were relegated to the appellate remedy under Rule 15. The Court granted a temporary stay on recovery of the penalty for 15 days to allow the petitioners time to file their appeal before the Commissioner.

Implications:

This ruling reinforces the principle that when a statutory remedy is available, parties must exhaust that remedy before approaching the High Court through a writ petition. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the procedural framework set out in specific statutes like the Uttarakhand Minerals Rules, ensuring that appeals are handled at the appropriate level before invoking the High Court’s jurisdiction.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Upholds Eviction for Unlawful Subletting, Bonafide Requirement, and Default in Payment of Rent, Rejects Tenant’s Appeal for Standard Rent Fixation