Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Kalpana Devi vs State Of H.P. & Others on 9 January, 2018

Bench: Sanjay Karol, Ajay Mohan Goel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.541 of 2017 Date of decision: 09.01.2018 Kalpana Devi ..Petitioner .

Versus State of H.P. & others . Respondents Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner: Mr.Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr.Ashok Sharma, Advocate General, with Mr.M.A. Khan, Mr.Varun Chandel, r Additional Advocate Generals and Mr.J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General.

________________________________________________________________________________ Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (oral) Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner contends that in view of intervening developments, present petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in the light of report of the High Power Committee, so constituted by the State.

2. Writ petitioner approached this court, inter alia, assailing the letters dated 1st December, 2016, issued by the Principal Secretary (Industries) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Annexure P-8) and 6th March, 2017, ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 23:07:49 :::HCHP 2 issued by the Director of Industries, Himachal Pradesh (Annexure P-10).

3. From the response, so filed by the State, we .

find that though the respondents denied the petitioner's case on merits, but nonetheless, constituted a Committee, comprising of four members, to examine the petitioner's case for grant of mining lease. Such mining lease shall be granted, in accordance with law, perhaps on the basis of inspection carried out by the Committee.

4. As such, without adjudicating the petition on merits and leaving all issues open, we dispose of the present petition with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider and decide the petitioner's case for grant of mining lease, in accordance with law. Needful be positively done within a period of four months from today after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

5. Needless to add, if the order is not in favour of the petitioner, the authority shall assign reasons while deciding the same, which shall be communicated to the petitioner. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to place additional material on record, if any.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any .

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

                                                     ( Sanjay Karol )
                                                    Acting Chief Justice





    January 9, 2018                                ( Ajay Mohan Goel )
         (vt/K)      r                                    Judge









                                               ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 23:07:49 :::HCHP