Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. The contents of replies of respondents 7 and 10 are similar, hence we are not repeating the same. In reply of respondent 11, substantial part is similar to other replies. There is separate para-wise reply also. However, the central defense and the facts disclosed are virtually repetition and, therefore, we are not discussing or placing the same separately to avoid repetition.

Reply filed by respondent 8:

20. A separate reply dated 17.02.2023 has been filed by respondent 8 (M/s. R. K. Stone Crusher) stating that it is only a stone crusher and not a mining lease and not engaged in mining operations; and there is no allegation that it is operating illegally or unauthorisedly, hence, it should be deleted from array of parties.