Uttarakhand High Court
WPMB/67/2026 of M/S GORA PARAO STONE COMPANY Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 4 February 2026
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPMB No.67 of 2026 Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. Mr. Ravi Sehgal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
WPMB No.67 of 2026
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Mr. Ravi Sehgal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
3. Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel has pointed out to Rule 15 of the Uttarakhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Illegal transport and Illegal Storage) Rule, 2015 thereof, provides for a remedy of appeal against the order of District Magistrate.
3. In that view of the matter, the writ petition would not be maintainable in view of the alternative remedy.
4. The writ petition is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal, if so advised, may be considered sympathetically by the appellate court.
5. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
[
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
Vacation Judge
04.02.2026
Ravi