Disposed

Anirudh Trehan v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC14 Sept 2017RP/109/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of a review petition originated from a larger set of writ petitions concerning mineral extraction notices. The court disposed of the matter based on the settlement reached in the original writ petition (CWP No. 7850 of 2010) where parties agreed to a fresh adjudication process.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of based on the compromise in the original writ petition; the previous notice shall not be acted upon, and a fresh consolidated notice shall be issued within eight weeks.

Anirudh Trehan Vs State of Hp — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Review Petition No. 109 of 2014

¶3

Date of Decision : September 14 , 2017

¶4

Anirudh Trehan … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) & others …Respondents

¶7

Coram:

¶8

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

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶10

For the petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

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 respondents/State.

¶12

Justice Sanjay Karol, ACJ. (Oral)

¶13

In view of the statement made as also order passed in CWP No. 7850 of 2010, titled as Shiv Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) &

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

others, which is reproduced herein under, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the present review petition:

¶17

“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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

¶21

Also the matter is now required to be adjudicated afresh by the competent authority. In effect, now no adjudication is required by the Court.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, as also pending applications, if any.”

¶27

As such, present petition stands disposed of accordingly, as also pending applications, if any.

¶28

(Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice.

¶29

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge.

¶30

September 14 , 2017 (PK)

Anirudh Trehan v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anirudh Trehan v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Hp

Gurmit Singh Vs State of Hp

Harpreet Singh Vs State