M/S Sidhbali Stone Crusher & others vs State of Uttarakhand & others

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

In these two writ petitions, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:-

“(i) Issue a writ, order, declaring the Rule-70 (10), and Rule (13)(2)(J)(3) in the Notification No.1875/VII-I/16/158-Kha/04-TC dated 09.12.2016.

According to Uttarakhand State Mining Development Notification No.1187v/kS-fo-/2001.22[k /2001 dated 30.04.2001, Abstention Rules 2001. This

notification has been amended time to time at least additional provision has been added. The notification dated 09.12.2016, as ultra virus to the

Constitution of India.

(ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the cases.

(iii) Award cost of petition to the petitioner.â€​

At this stage and when the writ petition was argued initially, the respondents were directed to file the counter affidavit in compliance of the earlier

order. The counter affidavit was filed and writ petition remained pending. At a later stage, Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Deputy Advocate General for the

State/respondent no.2 had produced before this Court a notification issued on 16.03.2018 being Notification No.658/VII-I/2018/80-Kha/16-TC, by

virtue of which, one of the Rules being Rule No.70 (10) of the Uttarakhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2001 was withdrawn.

The writ petition proceeded further with regards to the second part of Relief No.1 pertaining to the challenge given to the Rule 13(2)(Ja)(3) of the

Uttarkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transport and Storage) Rules, 2005. In relation thereto, today, Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Deputy

Advocate General has placed before this Court a notification issued on 22.06.2018 being Notification No.1416/VII-1/2018/52f jV/17, whereby, Rule

13(2)(Ja)(3) has also been withdrawn.

As such, in view of the two notifications as referred above being withdrawn by the State, the cause of action as agitated in the present writ petition

do not survive taking the aforesaid admitted fact on record as relied by learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. The fact that two notifications

whose validity was challenged are admittedly being withdrawn and this fact since being admitted to the parties were represented through their

respective counsel, no cause of action as of now survives. The said notifications were produced by the Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Pankaj Purohit

that prior copy of the said notifications supplied to the petitioner which stands admitted.

Accordingly, these two writ petitions are dismissed as having rendered infructuous.