Allowed

Maphal v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC14 Dec 2017CRLMA/498/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Single Judge dismissed the core contention regarding e-Ravana but allowed two connected criminal miscellaneous applications seeking directions to regulate mining activities after the Government issued a mandatory e-Ravana circular.

What did the court decide?

Both criminal miscellaneous applications were allowed as the Government had already issued a circular making e-Ravana mandatory, rendering the specific condition in the prior order unnecessary.

Maphal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Environment and Pollution | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 498 / 2017

¶3

¶4

S.B.Criminal Misc.Petition No.1930/2016

¶5

Maphal S/o Shri Jakir B/c Mev, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Nakhnole, Police Station Tapukda, Alwar, Raj.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan Through PP.

¶9

----Respondent Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 540 / 2017 in

¶11

S.B.Criminal Misc.Petition No.1930/2016

¶12

Maphal S/o Shri Jakir B/c Mev, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Nakhnole, Police Station Tapukda, Alwar (raj.)

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

¶16

----Respondent

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ashwani Chobisa

¶18

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Aniroodh Mathur for Mr.Anurag Sharma, AAG

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶20

Order

¶21

14/12/2017

¶22

It is contended by counsel for the applicant that this Court vide order dated 25.11.2016 directed the Government to issue circular to regulate the mining activities.

¶23

(2 of 2)

¶24

[CRLMA-498/2017]

¶25

It is contended that after passing of the said order the Government had issued circular dated 4.8.2017 and also have incorporated the directions issued by the Court and e-Ravanas have not been made mandatory. It is contended that Government has now issued letter dated 13.11.2017 wherein it is mentioned that e-ravana has been made mandatory and it is not necessary that the lease holders be directed to inform the Police Department about the Ravanas issued.

¶26

It is not disputed by the counsel for the State that e-ravana has been made mandatory and as such it is not necessary to inform the concerned Police Station on weekly basis.

¶27

In view of the submissions made before the Court the condition imposed by the Court in Para 6 (i) of the order dated 25.11.2016 need not be complied as the Government has already issued circular with regard to e-Ravana.

¶28

Both the criminal misc.applications are accordingly allowed.

¶29

Copy of this order be placed in the connected file.

¶30

(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.

¶31

teekam/83-84

Maphal v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maphal v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Dinesh Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Karanjeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Kishore Kumar Kushlani Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

State of Rajasthan Vs Manohar Singh and Ors.

Banwari Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.