Himachal Pradesh High Court
M/S Laxmi Stone Crusher vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 14 September, 2017
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
Review Petition No. 108 of 2014 Date of Decision : September 14 , 2017 M/s Laxmi Stone Crusher ... Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others ...Respondents Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice, The Hon'ble Mr. Justice, Sandeep Sharma, Judge.Whether approved for reporting? No. 1
For the petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
For the respondent : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. Anup Rattan & Romesh Verma, Addl. AGs and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3/State.
Mr. Ms. Nishi Goel, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.
Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Charu Bhatnagar, Advocate, for respondent No. 5.
Justice Sanjay Karol, ACJ. (Oral) In view of the statement made, as also order passed in CWP No. 7850 of 2010, titled as Shiv Kumar vs. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2017 12:38:18 :::HCHP 2
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others, which is reproduced herein under, learned counsel .
for the petitioner does not press the present review petition:
"In all these petitions, so filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have laid challenge to the notice to show cause/demand notice, so issued by the State Geologist, Himachal Pradesh/competent authority. As such all these petitions are taken up together for hearing and being disposed of.
2. We are informed by Sh. Rajneesh Sharma, State Geologist, who is present in Court, that during the pendency of the present petitions, in certain cases, fresh notices were issued, for it was found that there was variation in the quantity of extracted minerals. He further states that exercise for ascertaining exact quantity of extracted minerals, in each one of the cases, is required to be carried out and thereafter fresh notices to show cause shall be issued. Such exercise would take about six weeks. Further in the case of each of the writ petitioner, a fresh consolidated and comprehensive notice shall be issued within a period of two weeks thereafter. His statement is taken on record.
3. In view of the aforesaid statement, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners fairly state that till such time the issue is adjudicated afresh by the competent authority, petitioners shall not insist upon or take steps for refund of the amount so ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2017 12:38:18 :::HCHP 3 deposited before this Court/ competent authority. Also the matter is now required to be adjudicated .
afresh by the competent authority. In effect, now no adjudication is required by the Court.
4. Parties further agree that (a) fresh notices shall be issued by the competent authority/State Geologist within a period of eight weeks from today, (b) response thereto shall be filed by the writ petitioners within a period of six weeks thereafter, (c) endeavour shall be made by the competent authority to decide the same, in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks thereafter. (d) If so required and desired, it shall be open for the petitioners to agitate the issue afresh in accordance with law. (e) Further, in view of the above, earlier notices of show cause/demand notice, impugned in each one of these petitions, shall not be acted upon. (f) Withdrawal of notices, impugned in these petitions, shall not be construed to be waiver of the right of the State, more so, when consolidated notice is intended to be issued.
5. Hence petitions are disposed of in view of the aforesaid statements.
6. In view of the aforesaid, we also direct that till such time decision is taken, no due certificate for issuance of fresh grant/renewal of lease, shall not be withheld. It shall be issued subject to the outcome of the decision and outcome of the proceedings based on the consolidated notice. We clarify that all contentions raised by all the parties are left open.
::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2017 12:38:18 :::HCHP 4With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, as also pending .
applications, if any."
As such, present petition stands disposed of accordingly, as also pending applications, if any.
(Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice.
September
14 , 2017 (PK)
to (Sandeep Sharma),
Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2017 12:38:18 :::HCHP