Disposed

Pawan Kumar v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC14 Sept 2017CWP/4536/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Multiple writ petitions challenging demand notices issued to stone crusher operators were disposed of. Directing fresh consolidated notices to be issued after mineral variation verification, the court held pending notices shall not be acted upon until a fresh decision is taken.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notices to show cause/demand notices shall not be acted upon; fresh consolidated notice to be issued within 8 weeks; no withholding of due certificates for lease renewal/grant.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Hp — Company and Corporate | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 7850 of connected matters.	2010 alongwith
Date of Decision :	September14 , 2017
1.CWP No. 7850 of 2010
Shiv Kumar	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
2.CWP No. 7853 of 2010 Renu Guleria	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
3.CWP No. 7855 of 2010 Bir Singh	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
4.CWP No. 7856 of 2010 Gurdeep Singh	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents

¶3

¶4

5.CWP No. 7857 of 2010 Ravinder Singh	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
6.CWP No. 7858 of 2010 Shiv Kumar	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
7.CWP No. 7860 of 2010 Mukesh Mittal	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
8.CWP No. 7861 of 2010 Rameshwar Guleria	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
9.CWP No. 1154 of 2011 Harpreet Singh	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents

¶5

¶6

10.CWP No. 3309 of 2013 Harjit Singh	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & another	…Respondents
11.CWP No. 3310 of 2013 Satvinder Singh	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & another	…Respondents
12.CWP No. 3311 of 2013 Harjit Singh	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & another	…Respondents
13.CWP No. 3312 of 2013 Harjit Singh	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & another	…Respondents
14.CWP No. 1547 of 2014 Rajat Thakur	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents

¶7

¶8

15.CWP No. 4161 of 2015 Ram Kumar	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
16.CWP No. 4298 of 2015 Sardara Singh	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
17.CWP No. 4299 of 2015
M/s Shiv Om Stone Crusher	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
18.CWP No. 4300 of 2015 Naveen Goyal	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
19.CWP No. 4301 of 2015 Ajay Kumar	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents

¶9

¶10

20.CWP No. 4304 of 2015 Gurcharan Singh	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
21.CWP No. 4305 of 2015 M/s Santokh Stone Crusher	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
22.CWP No. 4347 of 2015
Gaurav Kumar	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
23.CWP No. 4445 of 2015 Gurmeet Singh	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
24.CWP No. 4478 of 2015 Bidhi Chand	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
through Secretary (Industries) & otheres	…Respondents

¶11

¶12

25.CWP No. 4536 of 2015 Pawan Kumar	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
26.CWP No. 4537 of 2015 Bhavesh Jaswal	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
27.CWP No. 4570 of 2015
Tarsem Bharti	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
28.CWP No. 4580 of 2015 Tripti Stone Crusher Coop. Ind. Soc. Ltd.	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
29.CWP No. 4860 of 2015 M/s Times Builders Stone Crusher	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents

¶13

¶14

30.CWP No. 4869 of 2015 Mehul CC Johnson	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
31.CWP No. 1631 of 2016 Ranbir Singh	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
32.CWP No. 2471 of 2016
M/s Times Builders Stone Crusher	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
33.CWP No. 105 of 2017 Gurmit Singh	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
34.CWP No. 431 of 2017 Pritam Singh	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents

¶15

¶16

35.CWP No. 503 of 2017 Ranbir Singh	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
36.CWP No. 504 of 2017 M/s Shri Ram Stone Crusher	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
37.CWP No. 1438 of 2017
Sham Singh	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
38.CWP No. 1439 of 2017 Dinesh Kumar	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
39.CWP No. 1485 of 2017 Pawan Singh	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents

¶17

¶18

40.CWP No. 1692 of 2017
Joginder Mohan Sharma	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
41.CWP No. 1694 of 2017 Gurmeet Singh Bhatia	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
42.CWP No. 1695 of 2017
Gurmeet Singh Bhatia	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
43.CWP No. 1725 of 2017 Parveen Kumar Sharma	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others	…Respondents
44.CWP No. 3711 of 2015 Harbhajan Singh	… Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
through Secretary (Industries) & another	…Respondents

¶19

¶20

Coram:

¶21

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice, The Hon’ble Mr. Justice, Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶22

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶23

For the petitioner : M/s. Deepak Kaushal, Ajay Sharma, Rajnish Maniktala and Arvind Sharma, Advocates, for the respective petitioners.

¶24

Mr. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Charu Bhatnagar, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No. 3711 of 2015.

¶25

For the respondent : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. Anup Rattan & Romesh Verma, Addl. AGs and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. for the State.

¶26

Mr. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Charu Bhatnagar, Advocate, for respective private respondents.

¶27

Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Mohd. Aamir, Advocate, for respondent-HPSEB.

¶28

Justice Sanjay Karol, ACJ. (Oral)

¶29

In all these petitions, so filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have laid challenge to the notice to show cause/demand notice, so issued by the State Geologist, Himachal Pradesh/competent authority. As such all these petitions are taken up together for hearing and being disposed of.

¶30

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶31

¶32

We are informed by Sh. Rajneesh Sharma, State Geologist, who is present in Court, that during the pendency of the present petitions, in certain cases, fresh notices were issued, for it was found that there was variation in the quantity of extracted minerals. He further states that exercise for ascertaining exact quantity of extracted minerals, in each one of the cases, is required to be carried out and thereafter fresh notices to show cause shall be issued. Such exercise would take about six weeks. Further in the case of each of the writ petitioner, a fresh consolidated and comprehensive notice shall be issued within a period of two weeks thereafter. His statement is taken on record.

¶33

In view of the aforesaid statement, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners fairly state that till such time the issue is adjudicated afresh by the competent authority, petitioners shall not insist upon or take steps for refund of the amount so deposited before this Court/ competent authority. Also the matter is now required to be adjudicated afresh by the competent authority. In effect, now no adjudication is required by the Court.

¶34

¶35

Parties further agree that (a) fresh notices shall be issued by the competent authority/State Geologist within a period of eight weeks from today, (b) response thereto shall be filed by the writ petitioners within a period of six weeks thereafter, (c) endeavour shall be made by the competent authority to decide the same, in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks thereafter. (d) If so required and desired, it shall be open for the petitioners to agitate the issue afresh in accordance with law. (e) Further, in view of the above, earlier notices of show cause/demand notice, impugned in each one of these petitions, shall not be acted upon. (f) Withdrawal of notices, impugned in these petitions, shall not be construed to be waiver of the right of the State, more so, when consolidated notice is intended to be issued.

¶36

Hence petitions are disposed of in view of the aforesaid statements.

¶37

In view of the aforesaid, we also direct that till such time decision is taken, no due certificate for issuance of fresh grant/renewal of lease, shall not be withheld. It shall be issued subject to the outcome of the decision and

¶38

¶39

outcome of the proceedings based on the consolidated notice. We clarify that all contentions raised by all the parties are left open.

¶40

With the aforesaid observations, present petition

¶41

stands disposed of, as also pending applications, if any.

¶42

(Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice.

¶43

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge.

¶44

September 14 , 2017 (PK/purohit)

Pawan Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar Vs Union of India and Others

Rajender Kumar Vs Union of India and Others

Jagat Ram Rana Vs Hp Horticulture Products

Gurmit Singh Vs State of Hp

Anirudh Trehan Vs State of Hp

Harpreet Singh Vs State