JUDGMENT :

B.K. Narayana and Prakash Padia, JJ.

1. Heard Sri Manu Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with following prayers:

"(a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.10.2019 passed by the respondent No. 2 to the extent it directs to the Collector Jhansi/respondent No. 4 to pass fresh modified order and modified consequential order dated 28.12.2019 passed by the Collector Jhansi/respondent No. 4.

(b) Issue writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned order dated 23.10.2019 and 28.12.2019.

(c) to pass any other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and to which the petitioner is entitled in law.

(d) to award the cost of the Petition."

3. The petitioner is a construction company. The petitioner-company awarded a contract for construction of Babina Canal System from right of Matatila Dam for providing irrigation facilities to 15 villages of Babina Block, District Jhansi. The aforesaid contract was awarded by Irrigation Department Matatila, Lalitpur through letter No. V-2/Babina Sinikh/Ma/180 dated 18.6.2015.

4. A notice dated 5.3.2016 was issued by the office of the Collector Jhansi/respondent No. 4 asking the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,15,69,748/- as balance amount of royalty against the quantity of soil used in completing West Canal Project failing which again as per Rules 3, 57 and 70 of the U.P. Mines and Minerals (Concessions) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1963") and section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development) and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1957") would be taken against the petitioner.

5. A detail reply was submitted by the petitioner on 18.3.2016 clearly stating that the petitioner has already deposited the amount of royalty as per invoice of Irrigation Department. It is further stated in the reply that in fact the royalty was deposited by Irrigation Department itself and the petitioner was paid after deducting the royalty amount for the work done. The respondent No. 4 without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice as well as in violation of conditions of agreement/contract, passed an order dated 1.5.2017 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,89,20,920/- as balance amount of royalty and mineral price.

6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, a statutory appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi/respondent No. 3 on 27.6.2017 along with the Stay Application for interim relief. On the said application, an interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 on 5.7.2017 with the condition that the petitioner would deposit a sum of Rs. 38,28,940/- being 1/3rd of the royalty amount. Ultimately, the aforesaid appeal was rejected by the respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 9.10.2017. Against the aforesaid order, a revision was preferred by the petitioner as provided under Rule 78 of the Rules, 1963 on 16.12.2017 along with Stay Application before the State Government. An interim relief was also granted in favour of the petitioner on 14.6.2019. Ultimately, the aforesaid revision was party allowed by the Revisional Authority vide its order dated 23.10.2019. By the aforesaid order, the order passed by the Appellate Authority was set aside and directions were given to the respondent No. 4/Collector, Jhansi to pass fresh order keeping in view of the Government Order dated 15.10.2015. After the aforesaid order was passed, a show cause notice was issued by the respondent No. 4 to the petitioner on 18.11.2019 and a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice was given by the petitioner on 2.12.2019 to the respondent No