The Court observed that mining activities in the PIL had stopped. It closed the proceedings on the cessation of mining but left the petitioner liberty to represent regarding an excavated pit at Village Manota Khurd.
Proceedings on mining cessation closed; liberty granted to file representation regarding the excavated pit.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Public Interest Litigation (PI L) Petition No.2596/ 2012 04.12.2013
HON ' BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE MR. AMI TAVA ROY HON ' BLE MR. JUSTI CE VEERENDR SI NGH SI RADHANA
Mr. Mahendra Singh Gurjar, for petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Yadav, AAG for the State. Mr. Ashwini Chobisa, for respondent No.8.
Heard Mr.Mahendra Singh Gurjar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Dinesh Yadav, learned AAG for the State and Mr.Ashwini Chobisa, learned counsel for the respondent No.8.
It is submitted at the Bar that the mining activities constituting the subject matter of the instant public interest litigation have since stopped. Mr.Gurjar, on instruction in particular, affirms this state of affairs. He, however, points out that as a result of the aforementioned activities, meanwhile a pit of depth of about 27 feet has occurred at Village Manota Khurd, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu.
Having regard to the submissions made vis-a-vis the mining activities to stop which the instant proceedings had been initiated, we are inclined to close the same. We, however, leave the petitioner at liberty to file appropriate representation, if so advised, with the concerned authorities to deal with the above mentioned pit in accordance with law.
( VEERENDR SI NGH SI RADHANA) ,J. ( AMI TAVA ROY) ,C.J. Mohit M/ 56
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Mohit Tak, Jr. P.A.
Petitioner
State
Respondent No.8
Amitava Roy
Veerendra Singh Sradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
