AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alok Singh, J
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following relief:
"i. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the undated recovery order issued by respondent no. 4 (contained in Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition).
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding / directing the respondent no. 3 to accept the royalty amount as per direction issued by Hon'ble Court in its judgment and order dated 21.03.2018 (contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition)."
Petitioner is a registered society. I am unable to find whether petitioner is a registered society or not. Petitioner is aggrieved by the Government Order 05.10.2009 whereby State Government was pleased to enhance the royalty charge on brick kilns.
This is third round of litigation. First writ petition no. 1858 of 2011 filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court by directing the Secretary, Industrial Development to decide the representation of the petitioner by speaking and reasoned order.
Second writ petition no. 800 of 2017 was disposed of with direction that in case, petitioner and its member deposit the amount, the Secretary shall give hearing to them and ultimate liability shall depend on the decision taken by the Secretary. Petitioner nowhere stated that in compliance of order dated 07.09.2011, whether it had moved any representation or not and if yes, what was the decision taken by the Secretary.
So far as first prayer is concerned, the same cannot be granted because petitioner is seeking quashing of recovery order, which was issued pursuant to Government Order dated 5.10.2009 and petitioner has not challenged the Government Order dated 05.10.2009.
So far as second prayer is concerned, this Court vide order dated 21.03.2018 was pleased to dispose of WPMS No. 800 of 2017 (copy whereof is Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) by observing as under:
"The writ petitions stand disposed with the direction to the petitioners to make a representation before the Secretary, Industrial Development, Government of Uttarakhand, who shall decide the same in accordance with law, provided each of the member of the petitioners' Association deposits the entire demand i.e. royalty which is liable to be paid by them as per the Notification dated 08.12.2016. However, since the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.V. Pundir has expressed that the petitioners' Association may not be able to pay the amount immediately, the Secretary would be at liberty to reduce this amount but in no case it shall be less than fifty per cent of the accumulated liability. In case the petitioners and its members deposit the amount with the Secretary of the Government, the Secretary shall give hearing to them and the ultimate liability shall depend on the decision taken by the Secretary.
In this order, the Court nowhere fixed the amount of royalty and this Court was pleased to direct the grant liberty to the Secretary to fix interim royalty during the hearing of the representation and thereafter, shall decide final royalty. From perusal of Annexure No. 7, it transpires that petitioner had not made any representation and himself had decided the royalty as 50%, which was not permissible. Therefore, second prayer cannot be granted.
Vide Government Order dated 05.10.2009, State Government was pleased to fix rate of royalty on brick kiln. This Government Order is applicable to whole of Uttarakhand. Petitioner alleges to be a society of brick kilns but it has not disclosed as to how many brick kiln owners are the members of petitioner society. Vide Government Order dated 05.10.2009, the State Government has framed policy for royalty, the Court should not interfere with the policy matter, until or unless, same is arbitrary or unconstitutional. Petitioner has statutory alternative remedy, therefore, no interference is called for in the matter. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.