Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 3]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Bhupinder Singh Thakur vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 14 July, 2015

Bench: Chief Justice, Tarlok Singh Chauhan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA       CWP No. 2496 of 2014­J          Decided on:   14.07.2015 .

Bhupinder Singh Thakur  ...Petitioner.

      Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others ...Respondents.

Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? 

For the petitioner:    Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr.   Shrawan   Dogra,   Advocate   General,  with   Mr.   Anup   Rattan   &   Mr.   Romesh  Verma,   Additional   Advocate   Generals,  and   Mr.   J.K.   Verma,   Deputy   Advocate  General, for respondents No. 1 to 4.

Ms.   Charu   Gupta,   Advocate,   for  respondent No. 5.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) Writ   petitioner   has   sought   the   following   reliefs  amongst others on the grounds taken in the memo of the writ  petition:

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:33:54 :::HCHP
­: 2 :­ "i) That the respondents may be directed   to take appropriate steps to stop the illegal   mining in Banuti­Kadaichi­Dedho Ghati­ .

Pahal Raod, near Shimla.

ii) That the respondents may be directed to   take action against the violators in terms   of  the   Mines   and   Minerals   (Development   and Regulation) Act, 1957.

iii) That the respondents may be directed   to take penal action and the violators may   be   directed   to   deposit   the   penalty   and   royalty   for   the   loss   of   minerals   of   the   r State."

2. The respondents have filed replies separately wherein  they   have   stated   that   action   has   been   taken   against   the  defaulters.

3. In terms of orders, dated 22.04.2015 and 01.06.2015,  the writ petitioner was asked to show as to who is the defaulter  and which officer(s) is involved in the breach of the Act and the  Rules, has failed to do so.

4. We have gone through the writ petition read with the  replies filed by the respondents.   The writ petition merits to be  dismissed in view of the replies.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed alongwith  all   pending  applications.   However,  the  writ   petitioner   is  at  ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:33:54 :::HCHP ­: 3 :­ liberty to seek appropriate remedy if he finds any person doing  illegal mining.

.

        (Mansoor Ahmad Mir)                 Chief Justice                (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)                      Judge July 14, 2015           ( rajni ) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:33:54 :::HCHP