Mamta Bora Vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Uttarakhand High Court 27 Nov 2024 Writ Petition (M/B) No. 541 Of 2024 (2024) 11 UK CK 0117
Bench: Division Bench
Result Published

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Writ Petition (M/B) No. 541 Of 2024

Hon'ble Bench

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J; Vivek Bharti Sharma, J

Advocates

Deep Prakash Bhatt, S.S. Chaudhary

Final Decision

Disposed Of

Judgement Text

Translate:

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1) 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.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Rules: Degree Title Not Mandatory If Core Subject Studied
Dec
07
2025

Court News

Supreme Court Rules: Degree Title Not Mandatory If Core Subject Studied
Read More
ITAT Slams Sexist Assumptions in Tax Order, Upholds Women’s Expertise in Business Commission Case
Dec
07
2025

Court News

ITAT Slams Sexist Assumptions in Tax Order, Upholds Women’s Expertise in Business Commission Case
Read More