IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 22 of 2005 (M/B) Umarao Singh S/o Kundan Singh, R/o Village Sajan Pur Pili, Tehsil and District Haridwar. ……… Petitioner Versus District Magistrate, District Haridwar. …….. Respondent Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.C. Gupta, Standing Counsel for the respondent. JUDGEMENT Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C. J. (Oral) Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.C. Gupta, Standing Counsel for the respondent. They are heard. 2. Petitioner Umrao Singh has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: “a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order No. 2078/XXX- 2004 dated 21.12.2004 passed by respondent (containing Annexure No.3) to this Writ Petition. b) to pass a suitable writ, order or direction in favour of petitioner and against the respondents which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. c) to award the cost of the present writ petition to the petitioner.” 3. The petitioner, in substance, is challenging the impugned order dated 21.12.2004 passed by District Magistrate, Haridwar, whereby the petitioner was found guilty of violation of Rule 3 of Uttar Pradesh Minor and Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 and was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 17,332/- as royalty and a further sum of Rs. 5,12,000/- as penalty. 4. It is not in dispute that petitioner Umarao Singh has an efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Rule 77 against the impugned order. 5. In this view of the matter, we decline to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The petitioner, however, shall be at liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order and also seek condonation of the delay in filing the appeal on the ground that the petitioner was bonafidely pursuing this writ petition. 7. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. 8. Consequently, the interim order dated 12.01.2005 stands vacated automatically. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C. J.) 20.06.2006 20.06.206 G