IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (PIL) No. 40 of 2009 Deepak Malik …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondents no. 1 to 5. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no. 6. Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, CJ. Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. Barin Ghosh, CJ. (Oral) As directed by us the learned counsel for the State has produced the order passed by the State Government on the report of the District Magistrate, a copy of the same be kept with the record. From the said order, it appears that the State Government after taking into account all aspects of the matter found that respondent no. 6 has extracted minerals from the areas beyond the leasehold land and accordingly has imposed penalty therefor along with issuing directions for payment of royalty. Learned counsel for respondent no. 6 submitted that his client has paid the penalty as well as the royalty as was determined by State Government. In those circumstances respondent no. 6 is accepting that he had carried out mining activities beyond the leasehold area. In those circumstances, we dispose of this petition by directing the State Government to be 2 vigilant and to ensure that in future respondent no. 6 does not carry out mining activities beyond 5.80 hectares of land as mentioned in the scheduled to the lease granted by the State Government in favour of the said respondent. In the event in future respondent no. 6 extracts minerals beyond the leasehold land, the State Government is directed to initiate prosecution against respondent no. 6, in addition to taking such other steps, State Government is required to take in accordance with law. The direction as above shall be applicable not only to respondent no. 6 but also to his successors too. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) VKG 10.11.2010