AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, ACJ. (Oral)
The controversy raised in the present matters is similar to the matters decided by this court on 16.09.2025, the leading case being CWP No.30704 of 2024 titled as Poonam Agarwala Vs. State of Punjab & others.
The operative portion of the order passed in Poonam Agarwala (supra), reads as under:
"17.The factual issues with regard to liability of the petitioner to deposit the amount of royalty, in view of alleged interruptions caused by the respondents, would require ascertainment of facts by the competent authority. This issue could have been examined by the Appellate Authority.
18.In the facts of the present case, we find that the Appellate Authority has not accorded any consideration to petitioner’s claim on merits. In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to embark upon the factual dispute with regard to liability of the petitioner to pay the installments towards royalty, from time to time. We are also of the view that the decision with regard to acceptance or otherwise of the surrender application would have a direct bearing upon the question urged in the appeal with regard to liability of the petitioner to pay the royalty amount.
19.Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction upon the Appellate Authority to entertain the petitioner’s appeal on merits and to pass an appropriate order on the factual issues raised by the petitioner with regard to her liability to pay the royalty amount. The Appellate Authority shall fix a date for hearing within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. An appropriate decision would be taken by the Appellate Authority after considering the factual issues raised by the petitioner and after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by passing a reasoned order within a period of three months. The consequential action, in the form of fresh decision, with regard to acceptance or otherwise of the surrender application would also be taken by the Competent Authority.
20.The amount deposited under the interim orders shall remain subject to the appropriate orders passed by the Competent Authority.
21.The petitioner shall also be at liberty to supplement the pleas raised in the appeal by filing an application together with a copy of this order within a week from today before the Appellate Authority.”
The petitioner in the present cases has not surrendered the mining lease. The prayers made in the present petitions are similar to that of the above case.
As the issue raised in these cases is squarely covered by the judgments rendered by this Court in Poonam Agarwala (supra), the instant writ petitions are disposed of in the same terms.
The pending application(s), if any, shall also disposed of accordingly.