Allahabad High Court
SHRI SANJAY TIWARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court quashed the recovery notice and ordered a fresh inspection, allowing the petitioner to resume mining unless a demand for recovery is made post‑inspection.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Tiwari, sought to resume mining operations and to quash a recovery notice and the order of the District Magistrate dated 1 July 2026 alleging illegal mining. The State, represented by the Chief Standing Counsel, agreed to conduct a fresh inspection upon notice to the petitioner. The Court set aside and quashed the recovery notice, directing that the petitioner communicate the order to the respondent and that a fresh inspection be scheduled by 19 September 2026. The Court further ordered that if the inspection reveals illegal mining, the petitioner must first satisfy any recovery demand before resuming operations; otherwise, the respondent must facilitate the resumption of mining. The writ petition was thereafter disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the recovery notice and the District Magistrate's order quashing mining activity can be set aside.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to resume mining pending a fresh inspection.
- Whether a fresh inspection should be ordered and the procedural timeline for the same.
Subjects
- mining
- illegal mining
- recovery notice
- fresh inspection
- quash order
- district magistrate
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 25008 of 2026
Shri Sanjay Tiwari
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Harshit Kumar Srivastava, Himanshu
Srivastava, Madan Lal Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.
1. On query in context of paragraph 2 of our earlier order dated 31st August,
2026, Dr. Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned advocate, Chief Standing Counsel
appearing for State submits, fresh inspection will be conducted upon notice
to petitioner.
2. Petitioner seeks relief of being able to resume mining activity as well as
by amended prayer for quashing order dated 1st July, 2026 passed by
respondent no. 2 (the District Magistrate). Recovery has been demanded on
allegation of illegal mining, revealed on inspection made by the authority,
disputed by petitioner. Paragraph 2 from aforesaid order dated 31st August,
2026 is reproduced below.
"2. Reproduced below is paragraph 2 from our order dated 25th August,
2026.
"2. Dr. Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned advocate Chief Standing
Counsel appears for State. On query he submits, the mining
material is in situ rock. He will obtain instruction on further
inspection upon notice and petitioner resuming mining
operation in the mean time."
Petitioner has also amended his prayer seeking, inter-alia, fresh
inspection. Instructions in context of above be issued."
State now says fresh inspection will be made upon notice to petitioner. Mr.
Madan Lal Srivastava, learned advocate led by Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned
senior advocate appear for petitioner.
WRIC No. 25008 of 2026
2
3. Impugned recovery notice is set aside and quashed. Petitioner will forthwith
communicate website copy of this order to respondent no. 2 upon undertaking to apply
for certified copy thereof. Said respondent will, upon such communication, intimate
date and time of inspection, to be conducted by 19th September, 2026. On basis of the
report said respondent will further act. In event of demand for recovery on illegal
mining detected, petitioner must first liquidate the demand before resuming mining
operation. Otherwise said respondent is to facilitate resumption of mining. It is
expected, the recovery notice, if to be issued, will be by 23rd September, 2026, failing
which there must be facilitation for resumption of mining operation.
4. The writ petition is disposed of.
September 14, 2026
sailesh
(Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Satya Veer Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SAILESH PRAJAPATI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…