IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 1746 of 2010 Ranjeet Singh S/o Singhara Singh …. Petitioner Vs. District Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar and another .. Respondents Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent. (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.) Heard Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Brief Holder on behalf of the respondents. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought the following relief- I- To issue a writ, order direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned letter/order dated 6-8-2010, Annexure No.3 to the writ petition, passed by respondents. II- To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to initiate recovery proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance of impugned letter/order dated 6.8.2010 till the pendency of the present writ petition. III- To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to repay the dues in lieu of royalty charges in easy instalments. Perusal of record shows that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to deposit the amount of royalty as per lease conditions and it was also directed that in case the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of royalty then the authority shall take appropriate action against the petitioner for recovery of the amount. If the petitioner wants some reasonable time to deposit the amount with the respondent, he may approach the appropriate authority. In writ jurisdiction no such relief could be granted to make 2 payment of royalty in instalments. It depends upon the respondent, who may grant some time to the petitioner for depositing the amount, if he thinks so necessary. The writ petition is dismissed as being not maintainable. Dated: 07-10-2010 (B.S. Verma, J.) ISB 3