IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 4747 of 2010 alongwith connected matters. Date of decision: 30.8.2010. 1. CWP No. 4747 of 2010. M/s Walia Stone Crusher vs. State of H.P. & ors. 2. CWP No. 4748 of 2010. Smt. Renu Guleria vs. State of H.P. & ors. 3. CWP No. 4749 of 2010. M/s Walia Stone Crusher vs. State of H.P. & ors. 4. CWP No. 4750 of 2010. Rameshwar Guleria vs. State of H.P. & ors. 5. CWP No. 4751 of 2010. Ravinder Singh Narula vs. State of H.P. & ors. 6. CWP No. 4752 of 2010. Harjeet Singh vs. State of H.P. & ors. 7. CWP No. 4753 of 2010. Bir Singh vs. State of H.P. & ors. 8. CWP No. 4754 of 2010. Shiv Kumar vs. State of H.P. & ors. 9. CWP No. 4755 of 2010. M/s India Stone Crusher vs. State of H.P. & ors. 10. CWP No. 5376 of 2010. Gurdeep Singh vs. State of H.P. & ors. 11. CWP No. 5377 of 2010. Mukesh Kumar Mittal vs. State of H.P. & ors. 12. CWP No. 5378 of 2010. M/s Happy Stone Crusher vs. State of H.P. & ors. 13. CWP No. 5379 of 2010. Hari Prakash Abbi vs. State of H.P. & ors. 14. CWP No. 5381 of 2010. M/s Krishana Stone Crusher vs. State of H.P. & ors. 15. CWP No. 5382 of 2010. Darshan Kumar vs. State of H.P. & ors. …2… Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shambhu Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Sarin and Deepak Kaushal, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K.Verma, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate, for impleaded respondent No.3. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petitioners are aggrieved by Annexure P-2 demand notice issued by the State Geologist. The said demand notice was purportedly issued in terms of the judgement of this Court in CWP No. 2632 of 2009 titled as Harbhajan Singh vs. State of H.P. & others. In terms of the judgement it is seen that the State Geologist has made calculations regarding the compounding fee due from the petitioners. Among other contentions, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners mainly contends that though this court had specifically directed the State Geologist to take action in terms of the judgement only with notice to the parties, no notice had been given to them. The learned Advocate General inviting reference to paragraph -14 of the reply submits that though the petitioners had already been issued notice on 7.6.2010, they had not raised any objection before the State Geologist. We are afraid, this contention may not be fully acceptable since this court had made it clear in the judgement referred to above that any action for recovery of compounding fee shall be taken only with notice to the petitioners. …3… 2. The learned counsel appearing for the impleaded respondent submits that petitioners do not deserve any indulgence from this court by their conduct. It is pointed out that petitioners have approached this court only after the expiry of the required period for payment, as fixed in the impugned notice. Still further it is submitted that though it is stated in the writ petitions that they have not filed any other petitions either before this court or in the Supreme Court, in some of the cases, the parties have moved the Supreme Court. The learned Senior Counsel on instruction from petitioners submits that though some of the petitioners had filed the petitions before the Supreme Court, those petitions have been taken back from the Registry of the Supreme Court in view of certain defects. Be that as it may. On instruction, the learned Senior Counsel submits that in case the petitioners are given an opportunity before the State Geologist to take all available contentions, they do not want to pursue any other matter in this regard. 3. Having hearing the learned Senior Counsel Sh. Shambhu Prasad Singh appearing for the petitioners, learned Advocate General for the State and State Geologist and Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate for the impleaded respondent, we are of the view that petitioners should be given an opportunity to state their objections before the State Geologist. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of, as agreed by the parties, as follows:- (I ) Annexure P-2 demand notice will be taken as notice to the parties in terms of judgement passed in CWP No. 2632 of 2009. In case any of the petitioners want to file their objection with all …4… available contentions, they may do so within a period of 15 days from today. (ii) Thereafter the petitioners will appear before the State Geologist on 15.9.2010 at 11.00 a.m. and they shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing by the State Geologist. After adverting to the objections taken by the parties, the State Geologist shall pass separate orders in each case on or before 22.9.2010. 4. We also make it clear that additionally impleaded respondent, personally or through any counsel or representative, shall also be afforded an opportunity of hearing in the process and the submissions made by the said respondent shall also be considered by passing an order as stated above. Needless to say that any levy shall depend on the orders, thus passed by the State Geologist. All the pending application(s) stand disposed of. Copy dasti. ( Justice Kurian Joseph ), Chief Justice. August 30, 2010. ( Justice Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.