Allahabad High Court
M/S GANGOTRI STONE CRUSHER AND SCREENING PLANTversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The court held that it will not interfere with the inspection itself but ordered the respondent to disclose the inspection report and allow the petitioner an opportunity to contest its contents, with a fresh inspection permissible if necessary.
Summary
M/s Gangotri Stone Crusher challenged a notice issued by the District Magistrate alleging a violation of its storage licence and demanding a payment of Rs. 15,36,800. The petitioner sought judicial interference, arguing that the inspection was conducted without proper procedure and that the inspection report lacked an independent witness signature. The court observed that the inspection was carried out in the presence of the gatekeeper and therefore could not be disputed, but the petitioner could contest the contents of the report. Consequently, the court directed the respondent to disclose the inspection report to the petitioner and to give him a reasonable opportunity to contest its findings, with the possibility of a fresh inspection if required. The notice was stayed for two weeks pending compliance, and the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the notice issued by the District Magistrate alleging violation of a storage licence.
- Whether the petitioner can challenge the legality and procedural aspects of the ex‑parte inspection.
- Whether the court should order disclosure of the inspection report and permit the petitioner to contest its findings.
Subjects
- storage licence
- inspection
- writ petition
- administrative law
- due process
- mining regulations
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 36599 of 2026
M/S Gangotri Stone Crusher And Screening Plant
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjeev Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.
1. Petitioner has challenged notice dated 18th August, 2026 issued by
respondent no. 2 (the District Magistrate) alleging violation of storage
licence to demand aggregate Rs. 15,36,800/-. Inspection/search was
carried out behind back of his client. There be direction to call for the
purported inspection report. It will not bear signature of any independent
witness, let alone representative of his client. He seeks interference.
2. Dr. Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned advocate, Chief Standing Counsel
appears for State. He draws attention to paragraph 13 of the writ petition,
reproduced below.
"13. That, it is relevant to point out that Mainpal (Chaukidar/gatekeeper)
was present at crusher/storage premises, when ex-parte inspection was
conducted by the Mines Inspector."
Petitioner cannot dispute the inspection. Court should not interfere.
3. We accept contention of State that petitioner cannot dispute the
inspection. At best petitioner can challenge contents of the report, on
illegality committed as reflected in impugned notice. In the
circumstances, interference on contention of due procedure of inspection
not followed will require us to probe on facts. Instead, we direct
respondent no. 2 to disclose to petitioner the inspection report and afford
him opportunity to contest the finding by producing relevant
documents/information. If necessary, fresh inspection can also be made.
WRIC No. 36599 of 2026
2
Petitioner will communicate certified copy of this order to respondent no.
2. Said respondent will expeditiously deal with petitioner's dispute
against the allegations upon granting him reasonable opportunity. For the
purpose, impugned order be not given effect till two weeks after decision
to either reiterate or withdraw it is informed to petitioner.
4. The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Satya Veer Singh,J.)
September 28, 2026
Jaswant
Digitally signed by :-
JASWANT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…