CWP No. 7390 of 2010 08.7.2011 Present: Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the electricity supply to his crusher has wrongly been cut off and that he may be permitted to run the stone crusher in question. 2. The State in its reply has stated that registration was granted to the stone crusher unit of the petitioner on 9.3.2007 for a specific period of two years on the basis that he will use the raw material which was already lying stacked and which had been verified by the Mining Officer in his inspection carried out on 7.2.2007. Thereafter the petitioner has till date not applied for the renewal of the grant of permanent registration. Therefore, there is no material on record to show from what stock the petitioner carried on the stone crushing business. According to the petitioner, he is purchasing raw material from the lease holder Sh. Kartar Singh Thakur etc. Respondents in their reply have stated that the leased area of Sh. Kartar Singh Thakur is at a distance of more than 12 k.m. from the stone crusher of the petitioner. It is obvious that carrying stones for 12 k.m. and then crushing them is not a viable proposition. It has also come on record that from 2009, without registration the petitioner has been running his stone crusher unit as is apparent from the electricity bills of the petitioner company. Therefore, the petition is dismissed with cost assessed at ` 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only). 3. If in case any mining lease application has been moved or is now moved by the petitioner the same shall be considered by the respondents strictly in accordance with law and while considering the same respondents shall also take into consideration the fact that petitioner without mining lease had been running the stone crusher. Any fresh application for renewal by the petitioner shall be considered after payment of the costs imposed. Interim order is vacated. Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. July 8, 2011 (PK)