Garg and Garg Co. Stone Crusher Vs the State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No.9318 of 2024

Decided on: 4^th September, 2024.

_________________________________________________________________ Garg & Garg Co. Stone Crusher ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors …Respondents ________________________________________________________________ Coram_

¶5

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua,

¶6

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶7

_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta and Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Dhiraj Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

¶8

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶9

Notice. Mr. Y. P. S. Dhaulta, learned Additional

¶10

Advocate General and Mr. Dhiraj Thakur, learned Standing Counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 4 and respondent No.5, respectively.

¶11

2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs: -

¶12

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

¶13

2 -

¶14

“(i). That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to grant Consent to Operate to the Stone Crusher of the petitioner, which is existing prior to Notifications dated 29.05.2024.

¶15

(ii) That a direction be issued to the respondents No.5 to grant Consent to Operate to the Stone Crusher Unit of the petitioner as has been done in case of other Stone Crushers Unit (Annexure P-16) in terms of directions passed by this Hon’ble Court dated 16.08.2021 in CWP No.3711 of 2021 titled M/s Ghangal Stone Crusher and others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others (Annexure P-15)”

¶16

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue raised in this writ petition and the reliefs prayed for the petitioner have already been considered and decided in judgment dated 16.08.2021, rendered in CWP No.3711 of 2021 (M/s Ghangal Stone Crusher and others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others) alongwith other connected matters . Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case respondent No.5-State Pollution Control Board is directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for grant of Consent to Operate to the petitioner Stone Crusher in light of the aforesaid judgment. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has no objection for this prayer.

¶17

3 -

¶18

4. Looking to the above submission but without

¶19

going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.5 to re-consider the case of the petitioner for grant of Consent to Operate to

¶20

the petitioner Stone Crusher in light of judgment dated 16.08.2021, rendered in CWP No.3711 of 2021 (M/s Ghangal Stone Crusher and others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others) and other connected matters , in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from today. Copy of

¶21

decision so taken be also communicated to the petitioner.

¶22

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also

¶23

to stand disposed of.

¶24

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶25

September 4, 2024 R.Atal

Garg and Garg Co. Stone Crusher v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Garg and Garg Co. Stone Crusher v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Another

Rup Lal and Others Vs Kanta Sharma and Others

Sunita Devi Vs Hrtc and Another

Mustkeen and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

Lachhman Singh Vs Ministry of Road Transport and Highway and Another

Rajneesh Kumar and Others Vs NHAI and Another