IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 11144 of 2011 Date of decision: 11.07.2011 Radhey Shyam Sanghi ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate for UOI. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. Gitish Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate for respondent No. 5. RANJIT SINGH J. The prayer made in the present writ petition is for issuing writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the auction notice dated 03.06.2011 issued by the Director, Mines and Geology Haryana, which is stated to be in violation of notification dated 14.09.2006, Annexure P-5, issued under the directions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1996 and in view of the law settled by this Court. Notice of motion in this case was issued and the writ petition was ordered to be listed alongwith CWP No. 11096 of 2011. Counsel for the respondents today submits before me that CWP No. 11096 of 2011 titled as Sandeep Sangwan versus Union of India has already been decided on 06.07.2011 by a Division Bench of this Court. It has been held in this case that in view of the order passed Civil Writ Petition No. 11144 of 2011 -2- by this Court in CWP No. 20134 of 2004, Vijay Bansal and others versus State of Haryana and others and the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) CC 5462 of 2011, Matsya Education and Rural Development Trust v. State of Haryana and others, the State cannot proceed to grant mining rights in pursuance of impugned notification until environmental clearance is granted in terms of notification dated 14.09.2006. The State has, accordingly, been restrained from proceeding further with the auction of the mining rights. The State has further been given liberty to obtain environmental clearance in terms of order passed in Vijay Bansal's case (supra). Even necessary application has also been moved. In view of the order passed by the Division Bench in Sandeep Sangwan's case (supra), no furthers are needed to be passed as the impugned notification has already been quashed. Counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, points out that second prayer made is for grant of Prospecting Licence under the Mineral Concession Rules, which may also be considered. The petitioner had made this prayer in the alternative and had sought the stay of the auction notice till his application was decided. Once the prayer is made for quashing the notification and the same is set aside, the second prayer would run contrary to the first prayer made in the writ petition. Once the environmental clearance is obtained by the State, the petitioner would be at liberty to file an application for licence to the State in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. July 11, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE