Disposed

Jai Prakash Nautiyal v. State of Uttarakhand through Its Secretary, Department of Industrial Development

Uttarakhand HC5 Mar 2022WPPIL/12/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand disposed of a PIL challenging the validity of the 2001 Minor Minerals Rules, finding the challenge infructuous due to repeal by a new 2021 mining policy. The petitioner was directed to file a representation regarding environmental impact assessment within 30 days for a 45-day decision.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; pending applications stood disposed; petitioner directed to file a representation regarding environmental impact assessment.

Jai Prakash Nautiyal Vs State of Uttarakhand through… — Land Acquisition | Uttarakhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

SRI JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J. AND SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE, J.

¶3

05^th MARCH, 2022

¶4

WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 12 OF 2018

¶5

Between:

¶6

Jai Prakash Nautiyal.

¶7

…Petitioner

¶8

and

¶9

State of Uttarakhand and another.

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

Counsel for the petitioner.	: Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Counsel assisted Ali Khan, the learned co	the by M unsel.	learned r. Imran
Counsel for the respondent no. 1.	: Mr. A.S. Rawat, the l Counsel assisted by Mr. the learned Additional Counsel for the State of	earned Prade Chief Uttara	Special ep Joshi, Standing khand.
Counsel for the respondent no. 2.	: Mr. V.K. Kapruwan, Standing Counsel for India.	the the U	learned nion of

¶12

Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following

¶13

JUDGMENT : ( per Sri S.K. Mishra, A.C.J.)

¶14

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has

¶15

challenged the validity of the Uttarakhand Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2001.

¶16

However, it is brought to our notice that the Uttarakhand Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2001

¶17

have been repealed by the adoption of the new mining policy by the State of Uttarakhand, dated 10.11.2021. Therefore, the first prayer of the petitioner has become infructuous.

¶18

With regard to the prayer no. 2, if the petitioner still has any grievance, he may file a properly articulated representation ventilating his grievances before the respondent no. 1 i.e. the Secretary, Department of Industrial Development, regarding the environmental impact assessment of the areas proposed for mining of minor minerals within 30 days by annexing a copy of this order as well as a copy of the Writ Petition.

¶19

In such an event, the Secretary, Department of Industrial Development-respondent no. 1 shall hear the concerned parties and, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and production of documents to the parties, shall take a decision within 45 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, along with a copy of the Writ Petition.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶21

¶22

In sequel thereto, all pending applications also

¶23

stand disposed of.

¶24

________________ S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.

¶25

____________ R.C. KHULBE, J.

¶26

Dt: 05^th March, 2022

¶27

Rahul

¶28

Jai Prakash Nautiyal v. State of Uttarakhand through Its Secretary, Department of Industrial Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash Nautiyal v. State of Uttarakhand through Its Secretary, Department of Industrial Development

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

Tamanna Vs State of Uttarakhand

Raj Kumar Vs State of Uttaakhand

Seema Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pooja Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kushi Kumari Vs Senior Superintendent of Police

Jagdish Singh Panwar Vs State of Uttarkhand