Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 3 (HP)

Rajinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2024-01-01

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “A. That a impugned letter/order dated 19.6.2023 (Annexure P-5) may kindly be quashed and set aside. B. That respondent may kindly be directed to grant the permission to the petitioner for lifting the remaining already extracted material assessed by the Joint Inspection Committee in its report dated 7.1.2021 (Annexure P-1) i.e. 15000 MT..” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is qua communication dated 19.06.2023 (Annexure P-5), in terms whereof his application for grant of permission to lift the extracted minerals, has been rejected by the Geologist (Zone- III) Geological Wing, Department of Industries. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by way of CWP No. 7713 of 2022, titled as Rajinder Singh vs. State of HP and others. Said writ petition was disposed of by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 04.01.2023 (Annexure P-3) in the following terms:- “10. However, such lifting shall be permitted only qua the stocks that have been evaluated by a Committee in the Joint Inspection on 07.01.2021 (Annexure P-6) and it would be under the direct supervision of the Divisional forest Renuka Ji or his nominee. Mining Officer is the nominee, for which, an advance notice at every occasion be issued by the petitioner. 11. The petitioner is directed to left the material by 31st March, 2023. The petitioner is further directed to maintain proper record(s), which shall be counter-signed by the representatives of the Forest Department and Mining Department. 12. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.” 4. Learned Senior Counsel drew attention of the Court to the report of the Joint Inspection Committee, which is referred in the judgment passed by Hon’ble Division Bench, copy whereof is appended with present petition as Annexure P-1. 12. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.” 4. Learned Senior Counsel drew attention of the Court to the report of the Joint Inspection Committee, which is referred in the judgment passed by Hon’ble Division Bench, copy whereof is appended with present petition as Annexure P-1. On the basis of the measurement details of limestone material lying at Santmine, Bhootmari, District Sirmaur, H.P., given in the report, he submitted that Hon’ble Division Bench was pleased to allow the petitioner to lift the limestone and Kachari, to the extent of 22522 M.T. approximately but now in terms of Annexure P-5, the prayer of the applicant to lift the material by extending the time as was granted by the Hon’ble Division Bench, has been arbitrarily rejected on the ground that the petitioner was granted permission to lift material quantified to the tune of 10,000MT only which is totally incorrect. He submitted that in fact Geologist (Zone-III) in terms of order dated 19.06.2023 is trying to overreach the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench by supplanting the relief as was granted to the petitioner by the Hon’ble Division Bench. 5. Learned Advocate General submitted that as the petitioner was entitled only to lift 10,000MT of extracted linestone and as the balance of limestone is on account of a landslide, therefore, there is no infirmity in the order that has been passed by the Geologist vide Annexure P-5. Accordingly, he prayed that the petition being devoid of merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as also learned Advocate General and having perused the averments made in the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that the reasoning contained in Annexure P-5 i.e. letter dated 19.06.2023, in terms whereof the petitioner has been denied the right to lift the left out extracted material on the alleged ground that the permission granted to the petitioner to lift the material was quantified to the extent of 10,000MT is totally ill founded. A perusal of the judgment that was passed by Hon’ble Division Bench in the earlier round of litigation demonstrates that the petitioner was permitted to lift the stocks as evaluated by the Committee in the Joint Inspection carried on 07.01.2021. A perusal of the judgment that was passed by Hon’ble Division Bench in the earlier round of litigation demonstrates that the petitioner was permitted to lift the stocks as evaluated by the Committee in the Joint Inspection carried on 07.01.2021. Thus, there was no rider put in by the Hon’ble Division Bench that the petitioner was to lift only 10,000 MT of the extracted material, as is the stand of the respondents. Hon’ble Division Bench was pleased to permit the petitioner to lift stocks as evaluated by the Committee in the joint inspection carried on 07.01.2021. The stocks evaluated by this Committee have already been referred to by me hereinabove and in terms thereof, the total stock was 22522 MT, which comprised of Limestone to the tune of 15882 MT and Kachari to the tune of 6637 MT. That being the case, it is not understood as to how the Geologist could have had introduced something in the order passed by Hon’ble Division Bench or the evaluation carried out by the Committee, which was neither in the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench nor in the evaluation carried out by the Committee. 7. Accordingly, as the rejection of the prayer of the petitioner to allow him to lift the remaining extracted material is arbitrary and not in consonance with the direction passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in CWP No. 7713 of 2022 (supra), this writ petition is allowed by quashing communication dated 19.06.2023 and by directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to lift the remaining material/stocks in terms of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court which permitted the petitioner to lift the stocks as evaluated by the Committee in the Joint Inspection held on 07.01.2021. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.