The High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding a pending representation on mining regulations. Finding the petition infructuous, it allowed the petitioner to challenge the subsequent speaking order.
Writ petition disposed of with liberty to impugn the speaking order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.11104 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.01.2015
Rajesh Kumar Kaushal ... Petitioner
VS.
State of Punjab & Ors. ... Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Angel Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sunil Vashisht, AAG Punjab
SURYA KANT, J. (Oral)
(1) The only direction sought in this writ petition is that the petitioner’s representation dated 15.02.2014 was not being decided in accordance with the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act, 1957 read with Punjab Minor Minerals Rules, 2013.
(2) The General Manager-cum-Mining Officer has filed an affidavit along with an order dated 11.11.2014 (Annexure R1) rejecting the above-mentioned representation.
(3) The writ petition having become infructuous is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to impugn the speaking order before an appropriate forum.
(4) Ordered accordingly. Dasti .
�����������
��������������
������������� ������
V.VISHAL 2015.01.29 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Rajesh Kumar Kaushal
State of Punjab
Surya Kant
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
