Facts
The District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, permitted the petitioner on 26 February 2020 to use 10,000 cubic metres of boulders obtained while levelling land for a railway yard.
Source reference: para. 2The petitioner was subsequently assessed royalty and penalty of ₹14,02,31,393, and a recovery citation was issued on 24 July 2026.
Source reference: para. 3The petitioner challenged the recovery, contending that the quantity allegedly removed in excess of the permitted amount had not been properly adjudicated or ascertained.
Source reference: paras. 4–5The State relied on a joint inspection report said to show removal in excess of the permitted quantity.
Source reference: para. 6The petitioner’s appeal against the determination of royalty and penalty was pending before the State Government.
Source reference: para. 7Issues
1. Whether recovery could proceed while the petitioner’s appeal against the determination of royalty and penalty remained pending.
Source reference: paras. 7–102. Whether the pending appeal should be decided within a specified period and recovery stayed in the meantime.
Source reference: paras. 8–10Law Applied
The judgment does not identify or apply a particular statute, precedent, or substantive legal test.
Source reference: paras. 8–10It proceeds on the basis that, where an appeal against the determination of royalty and penalty is pending, the appellate authority should decide it expeditiously and, to meet the ends of justice, coercive recovery may be restrained pending that decision.
Source reference: paras. 8–10Reasoning
The Court noted the competing positions: the petitioner disputed the basis and assessment of the alleged excess removal, while the State relied on the joint inspection and maintained that the assessment was justified.
Source reference: paras. 4–6Because the petitioner’s appeal against the determination was already pending, the Court considered it appropriate to have the appellate authority examine the matter rather than resolve the underlying assessment in the writ petition.
Source reference: paras. 7–9To preserve the position while the appeal was considered, it restrained coercive recovery for up to six months or until the appeal was decided, whichever occurred first.
Source reference: para. 10Holding
The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Secretary, Mining Department, Government of Uttarakhand, to decide the petitioner’s appeal in accordance with law within six months from presentation of a certified copy of the order.
No coercive recovery action may be taken for six months or until the appeal is decided, whichever is earlier.
Source reference: para. 10The petitioner may submit additional grounds of appeal by applying within ten days from the date of the order.
Source reference: para. 11Original Court PDF
M/S NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITEDvsSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
