IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP Nos.2263, 2271 & 2272 of 2010. Decided on: June 21, 2010. 1. CWP No. 2263 of 2010. M/S Himalaya Stone Crusher ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & ors. …… Respondents. 2. CWP No. 2271 of 2010. Raghubir Singh ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & ors. …… Respondents. 3. CWP No. 2272 of 2010. Avtar Singh ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & ors. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the petitioner : M/S Deepak Kaushal and Amar Deep, Advocates in all the petitions. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, AG with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG & Mr. J.K.Verma, Dy. AG for respondents. No. 1 to 3. Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate, for respondent No.5. (in all the petitions) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The question involved in these cases is whether the consent of the Gram Panchayat is a pre-condition for processing the applications for mining lease. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved since their applications for mining lease are not processed on the ground that the Gram Panchayat concerned has not granted 2 their consent. We see from the policy guidelines- River/Stream Bed Mining Policy Guidelines for the State of Himachal Pradesh at paragraph 9.8 Strategy 8 that : “ The opinion of the concerned Gram Panchayat shall be sought on prescribed Performa for consideration, before granting mining lease in non-scheduled areas” 3. It is not in dispute that the lease that is sought for by the petitioners in these cases is in non-scheduled areas. In so long as the policy does not prescribe for the consent of the Gram Panchayat, the licensing authority can not insist that the applications should be processed only after the consent of the Gram Panchayat is obtained. Infact, the licensing authority is expected to seek only the opinion of the Gram Panchayat concerned, in the prescribed performa. Consent and opinion are two different concepts. The policy prescribes opinion in the prescribed performa. That is intended to enable the competent authority to evaluate the opinion in the light of the information furnished in the performa. On evaluating the opinion thus rendered by the Gram Panchayat in the prescribed performa, the application is to be processed and decision is to be taken thereon. Therefore, these Writ Petitions are disposed of as follows: There will be direction to the competent authority to seek the opinion of the Gram Panchayat concerned, in the prescribed performa, if not already sought within a period of two weeks from the date of production of the copy of this judgment by the petitioners herein and thereafter process the applications on evaluating the opinion thus rendered by the Gram Panchayat and other relevant 3 materials in the light of the report of the Sub Divisional Committee. A final decision on the applications shall be taken, in any case, within another two weeks. In case, the electricity supply has been dis-connected on the only ground that there is no licence, it is made clear that in the event of the competent authority granting the lease, the supply will be re-connected forthwith. 4. With these observations, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice June 21, 2010. ( Justice Kuldip Singh ), (karan) Judge.