Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

M/S Mankotia Stone Crusher vs State Of Hp And Others on 10 October, 2017

Bench: Sanjay Karol, Ajay Mohan Goel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1768 of 2017 along with CWP No. 1770 of 2017.

Decided on 10.10.2017.

.

1. CWP No. 1768 of 2017.

M/s Mankotia Stone Crusher ....Petitioner.

Versus State of HP and others. ... Respondents.

................................................................................................

2. CWP No. 1770 of 2017.

M/s Thakur Stone Crusher ....Petitioner.

Versus State of HP and others. ... Respondents. ................................................................................................

Coram r The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice.

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

       Whether approved for reporting?1                No.

       For the petitioner.          :   Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate with


                                        Mr. Basant Pal Thakur, Advocate.

       For the respondents :            Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with

Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy. Advocate General.

Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (Oral).

In both petitions, so filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner(s) have laid challenge to the notice to show cause/demand notice, so issued by the Mining Officer, District Kangra at Dharamshala. As such both these petitions are taken up together for hearing and being disposed of.

1

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 10/11/2017 11:26:14 :::HCHP 2

2. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel on instructions, 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 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.

3. Parties further agree that (a) fresh notices shall be issued by the competent authority/Mining Officer 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 both 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.

4. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 10/11/2017 11:26:14 :::HCHP 3 consolidated notice. We clarify that all contentions raised by both the parties are left open.

With the aforesaid observations, present writ petitions stand .

disposed of, as also pending applications, if any.

Copy dasti.

(Sanjay Karol) Acting Chief Justice (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge 10th October, 2017 (Guleria) ::: Downloaded on - 10/11/2017 11:26:14 :::HCHP