CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Harbhajan Singh vs State of H.P. and Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 2 August 2011 · Citation: (2011) 08 SHI CK 0188

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kurian Joseph, C.J · Sanjay Karol, J
CASE NUMBER
CWP No. 3465 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 364 words

Sanjay Karol, J.—This petition is delinked from CWP Nos. 6892/2010, 7773/2010 and COPC No. 166/2011.

2.

In this petition, Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

1) A writ of certiorari may kindly be issued to the Respondents for quashing Annexure P-10 dated 3-3-2011 communicating their decision for rejecting the request of the Petitioner for reducing his mining lease area to less than 5 hectares and for surrendering the remaining sanctioned mining lease area in mauza Mohtali Tehsil Indora District Kangra.

2) Respondents may kindly be directed to reduce the mining lease area of the Petitioner from sanctioned and approved Khasra number 1508, 1512 to 1519, 1654, 1783 and 1786 measuring 66-60-51 hectare to khasra number 1513/1 and 1515 measuring 4-94-49 hectares in Mohal and mauza Mohtali Tehsil Indora District Kangra.

3.

Due to the intervening developments which have taken place during the pendency of the petition, as prayed for, there is No. need to adjudicate the petition on merits.

4.

Undisputedly, Petitioner has now moved an application before the authorities reducing the area of the land to be below 5 hectares for obtaining mining lease in the area in question. This fact is also evident from the affidavit dated 30th July, 2011 filed by the State Geologist, according to whom, permission can be granted. However, this fact is seriously disputed by the private Respondent. The matter also needs to be considered at the level of Respondent No. 1 keeping in view the various orders passed by this Court in other writ petitions.

5.

As such, without going into the factual matrix, a direction is issued to the State to decide the Petitioner''s application for grant of lease, after hearing all concerned, including the clients of S/Sh. Rajnish Maniktala, Shrawan Dogra and Deepak Kaushal, Advocates.

6.

A decision, in accordance with law, shall be taken within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. However while doing so, report submitted by the Advocate- Commissioners, affidavit filed by the State Geologist and earlier orders passed by this Court shall be taken into account.

7.

The writ petition is disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.