Rajesh Mehta vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The petitioner, Rajesh Mehta, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Directorate of Geology and Mining, Uttarakhand. The petitioner was a former partner in M/s Shiva Stone Crusher (respondent no.4), a limited liability partnership firm. The firm was constituted in 2018 and the petitioner retired from it on 20.05.2019, with subsequent re-constitutions of the firm. The firm's stone crusher license was renewed on 20.09.2023. Inadvertently, the renewal order mentioned the names of the original partners, including the petitioner. The petitioner had made representations to the department to cancel the license due to his name being wrongly used. The impugned order, passed in compliance with a previous court order, noted that the petitioner was duly served notice for a hearing, though his mother refused to accept it, and the notice was left at his house. The order also stated that the mistake of including original partners' names in the renewal order was inadvertent and had been corrected by an office order dated 18.08.2025, endorsing the names of the existing partners on the license. No monetary loss was suffered by the government or the petitioner due to this mistake.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order correctly addressed the petitioner's grievance. It was noted that the petitioner's counsel did not dispute that the mistake in the license renewal had been corrected by the office order dated 18.08.2025. The Court found that the impugned order clarified that the petitioner's name was inadvertently included and that this error had been rectified. Furthermore, the order explicitly stated that no monetary loss was suffered by the government or the petitioner as a result of this mistake. The Court also observed that the impugned order would serve as a valid defense for the petitioner when responding to the CGST Department's notice regarding tax dues from the firm. The petitioner was advised to respond to the notice and demonstrate that his name was wrongly included and that the business was run by the present partners. Consequently, the Court found no good ground to interfere with the impugned order or to direct cancellation of the renewal permission.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 31.12.2025, passed by the Directorate of Geology and Mining, Uttarakhand, correctly addressed the petitioner's grievance regarding his name being inadvertently included in the renewed stone crusher license of M/s Shiva Stone Crusher? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that his name was wrongly continued to be shown as a partner in the firm, despite his retirement, and sought cancellation of the license. He later raised concerns about a notice issued by the CGST Department for tax recoverable from the firm, implying potential liability. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents, through the impugned order, stated that the petitioner was duly served notice for a hearing. They acknowledged the inadvertent inclusion of the petitioner's name in the license renewal but asserted that this mistake was corrected by an office order dated 18.08.2025, and no financial loss was incurred by the government or the petitioner. They contended that the impugned order itself would serve as a valid defense for the petitioner against any alleged liability towards the firm's dues.