IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. C.W.P No. 1190 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 9, 2010 Raghuvir Singh Panjala & Anr. …Petitioners Versus: State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioners: M/s. Vishal Panwar & Vinay Thakur, Advocates. For respondents No.1, Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. 3 to 7: For respondent No.2: Mr. Anil Chauhan Advocate. For respondent No.9: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). The petitioners by means of this petition have prayed for the grant of the following reliefs: (i) That the respondent No.3 may be directed to cancel the mining lease permit dated 29.1.2010 issued in favour of the respondent No.9; (ii) That the respondents No.3 and 7 may also be directed to cancel the permission of respondent 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 No.9 to set up stone crusher in Gaj Khud Mohrawala falling under Gram Panchayat Lanj Khas; (iii) That the respondents No.2 to 7 may also be directed to impose complete mining activities ban in the Gaj Khud Mohrawala area falling under Gram Panchayat Lanj Khas; (iv) That the respondents No.2, 3, 5 and 6 may be directed to conduct a fresh inquiry against the granting of mining lease in an illegal manner in favour of the respondent No.9 and too by surpassing the mandatory rules of H.P. Panchayat Raj Rules 1971 and Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1971.” 2. The petition is purported to have been filed in the public interest. Respondent No.9 has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the locus standi of the petitioners to file the present petition on certain grounds. In view of the order which we propose to pass, we have not gone into this aspect in the present writ petition. 3. The undisputed facts which emerge from a perusal of the pleadings on record are that respondent No.9 applied for grant of mining lease in the year 1999 in respect of an area of land measuring 16-56-61 hects. in Mauza Lunj, Kehlian, Malarhru and Phir of Sub Tehsil Har Chakkiyan , District Kangra. This land forms part of Gaj Khud and it is not disputed by the parties that the River/Stream Bed Mining Policy, 2004 is applicable to the area 3 in question. This lease expired on 28.1.2005. It was renewed on 8.10.2007 with retrospective effect on 29.1.2005 for a period of 5 years. Therefore, the lease expired on 28.1.2010. Respondent No.9 again applied for renewal of this lease deed on 27.7.2009 vide Annexure R-9/3. Along with the application for renewal respondent No.9 filed certain documents but admittedly no objection certificate of the Panchayat was not filed. Therefore, as on date there is no lease deed in favour of respondent No.9. 4. According to respondent No.9 while it was granted lease for a period of 10 years, it has been unable to extract sufficient material even to meet the costs due to the various litigations pending and the obstruction caused by the villagers. We are not deciding the question whether any obstruction was caused by the villagers or not, since that would require a long drawn out inquiry. Be that as it may, it is apparent that respondent No.9 has made substantial investments in the expectation that the lease deed will be renewed. There should be certainty in the actions of the State Government. The State may decide to grant or not to grant lease in favour of respondent No.9 but such decision must be taken at the earliest so that respondent No.9 knows where he stands and the villagers also know what is happening in the area. 5. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: 4 (i) Respondent No.8 shall consider whether it wants to grant or not to grant no objection certificate in favour of the petitioners in respect of the mining lease in question. In fact we have been shown letter dated 27.6.2010 sent by the Mining Officer to the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, Lanj Khas, asking for its comments on a prescribed proforma. We direct the Gram Panchayat to issue its comments on the prescribed proforma within a period of 3 weeks from the date when a copy of this order is served upon it by respondent No.9. We make it clear that if within 3 weeks the Gram Panchayat does not send its response it will be presumed that it has no objection to the grant of mining lease. In case the Panchayat gives its comments against the petitioners it shall give reasons why it is opposing the grant of mining lease and setting-up of the stone crusher; (ii) The Site Appraisal Committee on or before 15th October, 2010 shall visit the area in question and take into consideration the comments of the concerned Gram Panchayat in terms of strategy 9.8.c. of the River/Stream Bed Mining Policy, 2004. It shall also take into consideration all other legal aspects and shall strictly in accordance with law 5 make its recommendations. In view of the fact that there has been a long standing dispute between some villagers and respondent No.9, we direct that the Site Appraisal Committee before visiting the spot shall give public notice to the concerned villagers about the date and time of its visit. This public notice shall be given by beat of drum and by sending the same by registered post to the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and by affixation on the Panchayat Ghar and/or any other place which the SDM who is the head of the Site Appraisal Committee may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Site Appraisal Committee shall consider all the objections and after taking into consideration all the factors make its recommendations on or before 31st October, 2010. (iii) Thereafter, within one month the respondent No.2, Board shall take further necessary action. 6. We may make it clear that in case it is finally decided to grant lease in favour of the petitioners the period of the lease shall begin from the date of actual lease and the period spent during this litigation shall not be treated as part of the lease period. This, however, is subject to the undertaking given to us in Court that respondent No.9 has not lifted after 29.1.2010 till date any material from the leased area and has further 6 undertaken not to lift any such minor mineral from the area till renewal, if any, is granted. 7. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. July 09, 2010. (rana)