Gurpaj Singh & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Mr.

Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the fifth respondent and, with their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in larger public interest seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned letter dated

20.08.2018 issued by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar; and a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned letter of intent dated 08.08.2018

issued by the Government of Uttarakhand.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioners are all residents of Village Gobra, Tehsil Bazpur of Udham Singh Nagar district. They

have filed this Writ Petition seeking a direction from this Court to safeguard the land and property of village Gobra. They contend that if the mining

activity, as proposed by the Government of Uttarakhand by the impugned orders, is allowed, the channel of the river Dabka would decrease by

approximately 5 feet per year, which would completely wash away Gobra village.

The proceedings dated 08.08.2018 is a letter of intent issued in favour of the fifth respondent to mine river-bed material from the river Dabka. The

proceedings dated 20.08.2018 is a consequential proceeding issued by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar directing that the mining area be

demarcated so that mining operations can be carried on by the fifth respondent.

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the fifth respondent, would submit that while the advertisement, inviting applications for mining river-bed

material in the river Dabka, stated that an extent of 20.223 hectares of land would be granted as lease for the purposes of mining, and the letter of

intent was issued for the same extent, the State Government had issued proceedings dated 26.11.2019 reducing the extent, of the area to be given on

lease for the purposes of mining, to 0.9272 hectares and, consequently, the fifth respondent herself intends to question the said order dated 26.11.2019

in appropriate legal proceedings.

Since no mining activity took place pursuant to the letter of intent dated 08.08.2018, and the extent of land to be granted on lease has also been

reduced which the fifth respondent claims to be aggrieved by, there is no imminent threat of any mining activity being undertaken in this area for the

purpose of extraction of river-bed material from the river Dabka. We see no reason, therefore, to keep the Writ Petition pending on file of this Court.

Suffice it, to protect the interests of the petitioners herein, to grant them liberty to avail their judicial remedies in case land, for the purpose of mining, is

demarcated enabling mining operations to be carried on for extraction of river-bed material.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, closed. No costs.