Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 81 (UTT)

Pratap Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-02-13

R.C.KHULBE, RAMESH RANGANATHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ramesh Ranganathan, J. 1. This intra-court appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2691 of 2017 dated 15.11.2018. 2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the appellant writ petitioner was given a mining lease to lift river-bed material for a period of nine months at Village Chinyali, Tehsil Chinyalisaud, Uttarkashi district, subject to payment of royalty of Rs. 35,09.775/- for the nine-month period of the lease. Contending that he was disabled, for reasons beyond his control, from lifting the river-bed material for a five-month period, the appellant-writ petitioner requested the respondents not to impose royalty on him for the said period and to extend the lease for a further period of five months to enable him to lift the river-bed material. On his request being rejected, the appellant-writ petitioner preferred an appeal to the State Government. By order dated 29.08.2017, the Additional Secretary held that the monthly royalty payable by the appellant writ petitioner was Rs. 3,89,975/-, and that he should pay the balance royalty payable in six monthly installments. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2691 of 2017 contending that, since extension of lease period was granted to some others, he should also be extended the same benefit. In his order dated 19.07.2018, the learned Single Judge, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Directorate of Fil Festivals and others vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain and others, (2007) 4 SCC 737 , observed that two wrongs do not make a right; and, if a benefit has been wrongly granted to one set of individuals, that would not be a ground for the same benefit being extended to the appellant-writ petitioner. While making it clear that it is always open to the appellant-writ petitioner to challenge the said order granting exemption to other persons, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that no relief can be granted to the appellant writ petitioner. 4. While making it clear that it is always open to the appellant-writ petitioner to challenge the said order granting exemption to other persons, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that no relief can be granted to the appellant writ petitioner. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant- writ petitioner filed Special Appeal No. 665 of 2018, and a Division Bench of this Court, after taking note of the contention of the appellant-writ petitioner that the documents placed on record by the appellant-writ petitioner had not been considered by the learned Single Judge, permitted the appellant-writ petitioner to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a review petition against the judgment dated 19.07.2018. On his review jurisdiction being invoked, the learned Single Judge, in the order under appeal, observed that the grounds for review were extremely limited, the review applicant had not been able to make out a case, and there was no error apparent on the face of record. 5. It has not been disputed before us that the lease agreement does not provide any extension of lease. The case of the appellant writ petitioner, in short, is that, because of reasons beyond his control, he was unable to lift the river-bed material for a period of five months, and, consequently, it would be wholly unjust for the State to recover royalty for the said period without granting him extension of lease for a further period of five months. In effect, the appellant-writ petitioner claims breach of the conditions of the lease-agreement by the State Government. His remedy to seek the relief, sought for in the writ petition, is only by way of a suit for damages before the competent Civil Court. The learned Single Judge was justified in holding that, merely because the State Government had extended the lease period with respect to some others, it would not be a ground for extending the same benefit to the appellant-writ petitioner also, as it was always open to the appellant-writ petitioner to question the extension of the period of lease for others. The appellant-writ petitioner has not questioned the grant of extension of lease to other individuals by the State Government, but has sought parity with them; and claims that he also be granted such an extension, though the conditions of the lease-agreement do not so stipulate. The appellant-writ petitioner has not questioned the grant of extension of lease to other individuals by the State Government, but has sought parity with them; and claims that he also be granted such an extension, though the conditions of the lease-agreement do not so stipulate. We find no error in the order of the learned Single Judge refusing to grant such a relief to the appellant-writ petitioner. 6. Leaving it open to the appellant- writ petitioner, if he so chooses, to avail the common law remedy of filing a suit before the competent Civil Court, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.