Mamta Bora v. State of Uttarakhand

I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL

HON'BLE THE ACTI NG CHI EF JUSTI CE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TI W ARI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTI CE VI VEK BHARTI SHARMA

W RI T PETI TI ON ( M/ B) NO. 5 4 1 OF 2 0 2 4

2 7 TH NOVEMBER, 2 0 2 4

Mamta Bora

…… Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others …… Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, learned counsel

Counsel for the respondents : Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief Holder for State

Th e Cou r t m ade t h e follow in g:

JUDGMENT: ( per Hon 'ble Th e Act in g Ch ief Ju st ice Mr . Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i)

According to the petitioner, she participated in an e-auction, in the year 2017, held by District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar for extraction of minor mineral from river Jagbura under River Dragging Policy, 2016; she was found to be the highest bidder, and the contract was awarded to her. However, due to dispute

between Forest Department and Revenue Department regarding ownership of land, she could not undertake mining work and the period for which she was given mining rights expired on 30.06.2017.

2)

Petitioner has challenged the advertisement dated

18.11.2024, issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khatima relating to Jagbura river, mainly on the ground, that since she was the successful bidder in the last auction held in the year 2017, and she could not undertake mining work because of dispute between Forest and Revenue Departments, and the amount deposited by her as security, is still lying with the District Administration, therefore, she has the first right to get the contract and contract cannot be awarded to any other person.

3)

Learned State counsel, however, submits that the period for which mining contract was given to petitioner was over in 2017, therefore, she does not have any subsisting right to get contract in the year 2024. He further submits that petitioner, if interested in getting mining contract, should participate in the bidding process, which was initiated by advertisement dated 18.11.2024.

4)

Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that petitioner made representations from time to time to

the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, but no decision has been taken as yet. He confines his prayer only to the extent that the petitioner be permitted to make fresh representation to the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar for redressal of her grievances.

5)

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make fresh representation to the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar within ten days from today. If such representation is made by the petitioner within the time stipulated, the District Magistrate shall look into the matter, and take decision in the matter, within eight weeks thereafter.

_________________________

MANOJ KUMAR TI W ARI , A.C.J.

_ _ _ _ _

VI VEK BHARTI SHARMA, J.

Dt: 27TH NOVEMBER, 2024 Negi

HIMA NSHU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef 1dae20d13aaf116e73351fdaf 6878326386908a7f90d5757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F 4A80990FC51A722A6BC552 D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18DB 2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2024.11.28 10:44:53 +05'30'