IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14033 of 2010 Date of Decision : August 17, 2010. M/s S.S. & Co. .....Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner being the highest bidder in the auction held on 27.3.2008, has been awarded the contract alongwith exclusive rights to extract minor minerals, namely, 'ordinary sand' in district Panipat (Haryana). The petitioner's grievance appears to be that on account of more than one unforeseen circumstances including non-implementation of various directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 15.5.2009 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.20134 of 2004 (Vijay Bansal and others versus State of Haryana and others), the petitioner has not been able to extract the minor minerals w.e.f. 1.3.2010 onwards. One of the grievances of the petitioner is that even when the petitioner is unable to carry on the mining activities, the Department of Mines and C.W.P.No .14033 of 2010 2 Geology, is compelling the petitioner to deposit the quarterly/monthly fee/ charges as per the agreed terms and conditions of the contract awarded to it. The petitioner made a representation dated 8.6.2010 (Annexure P-9) before the authorities to exempt it from the quarterly/monthly fee/charges till the petitioner resumes its mining activities after the environmental clearance is obtained by the State Government in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Vijay Bansal and others' case (supra). The petitioner's representation has been turned down by the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana, vide a self-speaking order dated 15.7.2010 (Annexure P-10), giving rise to these writ proceedings. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the records. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that various contentions raised by the petitioner requires due consideration by the State Government. Accordingly and as prayed for by him, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Mines and Geology Department, to treat this writ petition as a representation on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 15.7.2010 (Annexure P-10), passed by the Director, Mines and Geology, Haryana, and decide the same by passing a speaking order after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the representative of the petitioner. The State Government shall pass the appropriate order in accordance with law/Rules, within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. C.W.P.No .14033 of 2010 3 Meanwhile, the deposit of quarterly/monthly fee/charges, if any, shall be without prejudice to the legal rights of the petitioner. However, to enable the petitioner to approach the State Government and seek any interim relief, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner for a period of two weeks. Dasti. August 17, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE