Allowed

Parth Mehta v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Mar 2024CWP/1744/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought constitutional relief to operate his pre-2014 stone crusher after rejection of renewal consent influenced by a National Green Tribunal order. Court held such pre-existing crushers must be considered irrespective of that order and directed fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to decide the petitioner's application for renewal of Consent to Operate afresh, without being influenced by the Bhag Singh order, within two weeks, after affording an opportu

Parth Mehta Vs State of Hp and Others — Environment and Pollution | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 1744 of 2024

¶3

Date of Decision: 07.03.2024

¶4

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Parth Mehta ...Petitioner Versus State of HP & Ors. …Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For the Petitioner Mr. Aditya Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.

¶5

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶6

Since prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to operate his Stone Crusher, which was in existence prior to issuance of notification dated 29.05.2014, by renewing Consent to Operate, applied on 06.02.2024, is not being considered by respondent No. 4, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for the following reliefs:

¶7

¶8

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶9

(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to operate his Stone Crushers, which are existing prior to Notification dated 29.05.2014 by renewing consent to operate, which was applied on 06.02.2024.

¶10

(ii) That the similar order may kindly be passed in the present case as passed by this Hon'ble Court in Annexure P-5.

¶11

Perusal of pleadings, which are supported by an affidavit as well as documents annexed therewith, clearly reveals that prior to issuance of notification dated 29.05.2014 issued by Government of Himachal Pradesh thereby ordering that no Stone Crusher shall be permitted to be set up within the periphery of 100 metres of the water bodies, Stone Crusher of the petitioner stood established and it was being run since 2007. Vide application dated 06.02.2024, Annexure P-3, on prescribed format, petitioner applied for renewal of Consent to Operate, but such prayer of him was declined by the competent authority in terms of direction contained in order dated 29.10.2018 passed by learned National Green Tribunal in case titled Bhag Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. , pursuant to which notification dated 29.05.2014 came to be issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh thereby deciding not to permit stone crusher to be set up within the periphery of 100 metres of the water bodies.

¶12

While making this Court peruse judgment dated 16.08.2021 passed by Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions I.e. Civil Writ Petition No. 3711 of 2021 dated 11.02.2021 titled M/s Ghangal Stone Crusher Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case of those Stone crushers, which stood set up prior to issuance of notification dated 29.05.2014, prayer, if any, made for renewal of Consent to Operate is required to be considered by Department without being influenced by order dated 29.10.2018 passed by learned National Green Tribunal in case titled Bhag Singh Vs. Union of India .

¶13

After having gone through the aforesaid judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court, there appears to be merit in the claim of the petitioner.

¶14

While accepting notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, after having perused the mandate given in M/s Ghangal Stone Crusher Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, fairly admitted that prayer made on behalf of petitioner for renewing Consent to Operate, needs to be considered without being influenced by the order passed by learned National Green Tribunal in Bhag Singh's case supra .

¶15

Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is

¶16

disposed of with a direction to respondents to decide the application filed by the petitioner (Annexure P-2) afresh, strictly in accordance with law, but without being influenced by the directions contained in order dated 29.10.2018 passed by learned National Green Tribunal in Bhag Singh Vs. Union of India expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks. Needless to say, the authority concerned, while doing the needful shall afford an opportunity to the petitioner and pass a detailed order thereafter. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the competent Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved.

¶17

All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶18

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶19

March 07, 2024 (sunil)

Parth Mehta v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parth Mehta v. State of Hp and Others

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

Pardeep Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

M/S Shivalik Packaging Industries Vs Hpsebl and Others

M/S Akhil Enterprises Vs Hpsebl and Others

Prem Lata Vs State of Hp and Others

Muskan Katoch Vs Ch. Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya and Another

Jasvir Singh Hans Vs State of Hp and Ors.