IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 148 of 2009 Brahampal …..…… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……….. Respondents Coram:- Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Present: Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Date of Decision: 18.03.2010 J.S. Khehar, C.J. (Oral) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3, a report dated 28.02.2009 referring terms and conditions regarding grant of lease for mining minor minerals, has been appended as Annexure CA-3. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed, that the authorization to mine minor minerals has to be in conformity with the conditions depicted therein. The first relevant condition, in so far as the present controversy is concerned, is condition No.2, which parties agree to restrain respondent No.3 from mining minor minerals in the land under reference beyond a height of one and a half metres above the river-bed. Learned counsel for respondent No.3. states, that respondent No.3 has not mined any minor minerals below one and a half metres above the river-bed, and that, he shall not mine the same beyond the aforesaid height. 2. The second issue under reference is, that respondent No.3 is mining minor minerals not only in his own land, for which the lease agreement has been executed, but also from the river-bed. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 denies this factual position and states, that he is neither mining minor minerals from the river-bed, nor shall he do so in future. 3. In view of the categoric stand raised on behalf of respondent No.3 on the two issues dealt with in the foregoing two paragraphs, we are 2 satisfied, that the instant writ petition should be disposed of with the direction to respondent No.3 to comply with the undertaking given by him to this Court. So as to ensure that the undertaking given to this Court by respondent No.3 is not violated, liberty is granted to the petitioner, as also other residents of the same village, to move an appropriate representation to the Collector, Haridwar alongwith a certified copy of this order, in case respondent No.3 violates the undertaking given to this Court. In case, such a representation is made by the petitioner or any other resident of the village, the Collector Haridwar shall get the spot inspected and pass an appropriate order within three weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. In case respondent No.3 is found to be violating the undertaking given to this Court or any other terms and conditions referred to in the report dated 28.02.2009, it will be open to the Collector to take such action as may be open to him in accordance with law, including cancellation of the lease agreement itself. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states, that with the direction issued by this Court, the instant writ petition has been rendered infructuous. The instant writ petition is, accordingly, being disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. If, however, inspite of the mechanism provided by us to prevent violation of the terms and conditions referred to in the report dated 28.02.2009, the representation made by the petitioner or any other resident of the village does not lead to a fruitful result, it will be open to the petitioner to move a civil miscellaneous application and revive the instant writ petition. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. A copy of this order shall be furnished to the learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 to 4 under the signatures of the Bench Secretary attached to this Court, free of cost, so that the same can be communicated to the Collector, Haridwar for implementation. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 18.03.2010 P. Singh