THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1515 of 2010. Uttarakhand State Cooperative Federation Limited through its Managing Director. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Mr. U.K.Uniyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.P.Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Date August 28, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 7287 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16-7-2010 passed by the respondent no.2-Principal Secretary, Industrial Development Department, whereby the mining activity of the petitioner was suspended on the ground that no permission was obtained by the petitioner in view of the G.O. No. 1613/VII-1-10/26-Writ/2009, dated June 30, 2010, which was issued pursuant to Ministry of Environment and Forests Notification dated 14th September 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the said Notification is not at all applicable to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the clarification Circular of Central Government No. J-5012/35/2007-IA.II (M)-Part dated 2nd July, 2007. I have perused the impugned order dated 16-7-2010 (Annexure-11). In the impugned order, reference was made by the respondent no.2 of an interim order dated 5-6-2009 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition-PIL No. 34 of 2009, Mohd. Arshi Vs. Union of India and 13 others, whereby the mining 2 activity by respondent no. 13 and respondent no. 14 in Doon Valley was stayed until further orders of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that respondent no.13 and 14 are Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam and Uttaranchal Van Vikas Nigam. According to the petitioner, the area of mining in the instant writ petition does not fall within the area of Doon Valley and that the petitioner was not a party to the said PIL. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the respondent no.2. He also submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of today itself. In the above facts and circumstances, liberty is given to the petitioner to make a representation before the respondent no.2 for redressal of his grievance. If the representation is made, the Principal Secretary, Industrial Development Department after hearing the petitioner shall decide the same by a speaking and reasoned order expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order along with the representation. He shall also deal with the issue whether the Notification referred to in the impugned order is applicable to the case of the petitioner, while deciding the representation. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP