+ 21.01.20 •```. IN THE HIGH COURT 0F SIKKIM ORDER SHEET \,.Jrit Petition (C) pra'tap singh No.1 of 2006 ;entwf er I Hirdrdalwlalul Versus l::.::.:.t.:.Ey:if.:.::i::::I::ifeT.6:::::.:.F:Fespondents Forests Order with Signature 6 Petitioner filed the present writ petition along with two Civil Misc. Applications, one for stay of the operation of the impugned license being Ref.No.1962/FTS dated. 22.11.2005 (Annexure P/6) and the other for urgent hearing of the petition. Heard Mr. A. K. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Miss Sapna Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Karma Thinlay, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ` No forlnal notice is called for in respect of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as Mrt Karma Thinlay, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Issue notice to the respondent No.3. The petitioner shall supply one set of requisites for service of notice to the respondent No.3 during the course of the day. Notice is made returnable on 8.3.2006. In the meantime, the respondents shall be at liberty to °file counter-afridavit. This is a Division Bench matter. This may be placed before the Hohble Chief Justice for passing appropriate orders on reopening of the Court after the ongoing winter vacation. A. P. Subl.a Office Note as to action (if any) taken on Order Rut rty.JL N o UiJL -h±*a:rfa:,,.=±.d< ±1-,-±®®1 L.,,;,i± Judge ialOf Dateo' Order witl` Sienature aoc%ne(Tf¥jisto `er Order taken on Order C.M.A.No.1 /2006 '`\ 0 Heard Mr. A. K. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Miss Sapna Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Karma Thinlay, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner had been operating a quarry at Bardang, East Sikkim under a license granted to him by the respondent No.2 since 1998. Since no specific period for operating the quarry was specified in the approval, the license was being renewed at the end of every year. Accordingly, at the end of the year 2005, the petitioner applied for renewal of his quarry license and pursuant to his application, necessary field enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted as at Annexure P/5, duly recommending the case of the petitioner. However, instead of renewing his license as usual, the respondent No.2 granted license in respect of the same quarry to the respondent No.3 on 22.11.2005 behind the back of the petitioner. The petitioner came to know about the issue of license in favour of respondent No.3 only on 16.01.2006. It is stated that the respondent No.3 has not ;;:±£}tarted operating the quarry in question till date . However, he has completed all preparations and is going to start operating the quarry at any time now. Hence, ::popnr:::ntst.±¥:onmp;avlying8f:::herres::f:cntLnt::: Impugned quarry license till the final hearing of the matter. L- i-ff==. Note as to Office Order with Signature action (if any) taken on Order Upon hearing Mr. A.K. Upadhyaya, leaned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Sapna Rai, 1eamed counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.P. Wangdi, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. J.B. Pradhan and Mr. Karma Thinlay, learned Government Advocates for the State-respondents at some length. Mr. A.K. Upadhyaya, learned senior counsel in his usual frankness submitted that the petitioner desires to withdraw this petition with a direction to the respondents-authority to dispose of the representation dated 14th December 2005 submitted by the petitioner to the authority concerned, as in Annexure P-3, as early as possible. In our considered view the prayer is reasonable and accord`ingly, it is allowed, thus closing the writ petition as withdrawn, with a direction to the concerned authority to dispose of the representation dated 14th December 2005 submitted by the petitioner, as in Annexure P-3 to this writ petition, by a speaking order and communicate the result of it to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order for which the petitioner is at liberty to obtain a certified copy of this order and communicate the same to the authority concerned for doing the needful in the matter. There shall be no order as to cost. `;::,``,...;;:i._.`. . ``. ingh ) _ 8eul_ ( A.P. Subba Judge JK Order with Signature Office Note as to action (if any) taken on Order Considered. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on the date of issue of the impugned license dated 22.11.2005, Annexure P/6 until further orders. A copy of this order be served on the re spondents. th Jrtye It is agreed by all learned counsel that in terms of the order passed by the learned vacation Judge, the writ petition be listed for its disposal on merit on 8-3-2006. It is ordered accordingly. The petition filed by Respondent No.3 stands disposed of accordingly. QJ-I,' (13inod Kumar Roy) Chief Justice beLLLruh ¢u try tA+ ^apdJ-Lrosl, J ul J ki± ®s oin rha o~rfu Eb ke Lie en8.?.£,e #di.