IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 6946 of 2010. Decided on: 1.12.2011. ___________________________________________________________ Sh. Atma Ram … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. B.N. Mehta & Mr. Rajeshwar Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following substantive prayers vide para 18 (i) and (ii):- (i). That the petitioner in the facts and circumstances prays that the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the mining lease for twenty years keeping in view the facts and circumstances in the writ petition and in accordance with the policy of the Govt. and in view of the judicial judgments of this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court. (ii). That the respondents may be directed to depute the concerned authority to inspect the mining quarry site in Khasra No. 923/1 measuring 38 bigha and 13 biswa in a time bond manner and after having inspected the sight on the basis of the favourable report grant/favour the petitioner with the renewal of the mining lease for further twenty years w.e.f. 2010 to 2030.” 2. In reply, respondents No. 1 to 3 have taken the following stand vide paras 1 & 2 of the preliminary submissions:- “1. That it is submitted that a mining lease for an area 38-13 bighas bearing Kh. No. 923/1, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 situated in Mauza Shilla, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmour, H.P. for extraction of lime stone mineral was granted for a term of 10 years w.e.f. 17.3.1987 to 16.3.1997 in favour of the petitioner under the provisions of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Subsequently, the lease granted in favour of the petitioner was transferred on the written request of the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 37 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 in favour of the respondent No.4 on 6.12.1995. As such the petitioner has no right to interfere in the matter for renewal of mining lease, when it has already been transferred by him. 2. That the respondent No.4 had submitted the mining lease renewal application on 19.3.1996, which has been rejected by the respondent- State vide letter dated 24.12.2009 after affording an opportunity to the respondent No.4 for making oral or written submission on 16.11.2009 as the area under reference was a forest land and attracting the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980, requiring clearance for diversion of forest land for non- forestry purpose from the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India, for which the respondent No.4 failed to obtain such clearance.” 3. Rejoinder refuting the above stand on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and reiterating the averments set up in the petition has been filed. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above reply, the petition is disposed of with a direction that subject to the petitioner making a detailed representation supported by documents, if any, to respondent No. 1 within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment, who shall consider the 3 same and take a final decision in the matter in accordance with law within further four weeks, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondent No.4, if so desired. 5. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. December 1, 2011. (cr)