IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 637 OF 2009 (MS) Sanjay Kumar & another. ….Petitioners. Versus Union of India and others. ……Respondents. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate holding brief of Mr. R.K. Raizada, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for respondent no. 3. Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 7. 1st July, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioners have filed this writ petition with the following prayers: “(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 29.8.2008 passed by State of Uttarakhand (Annexure no. 41) and the consequential orders dated 24.9.2008 (Annexure No. 49) and order dated 17.12.2008 passed by Chief Conservator of Forest / Nodal Officer (Annexure No. 50) and the order dated 23.12.2008 passed by Deputy Conservator of Forest (Annexure No. 51) and order dated 19.1.2009 (Annexure No. 52). (ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to execute mining lease in favour of respondent no. 3 and further a writ of mandamus be issued against Respondents directing them not to issue a Form MM-11 in favour of Respondent No. 3. (iii) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 and 2 to enquire into acts of respondent No. 8 and to recover the loss caused to revenue and the loss caused to environment from his jointly with such action and from person who found guilty. (iv) Any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (v) Award the cost of petition to the petitioners.” The main grievance of the petitioners is that a mining lease / permission has been given to respondent no. 3 by State Government of Uttarakhand, which the petitioners allege is in violation of law. Hence present writ petition. The facts of the case are that a new State was carved out from the erstwhile State of U.P. by an Act of Central Government known as U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 and State of Uttarakhand came into existence on 9th November, 2000. Subsequently thereafter the State Government of Uttarakhand framed its own policy regarding mining in the State of Uttarakhand and broadly in the said policy, the mining land which was in the Forest area was to be given only to the Forest Development Corporation and the land which was outside the forest area was to be given to the Govt. Companies i.e. Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam and Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam. This was in pursuance of the notification issued by the Government of India under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 whereby permission was given to the State to do non forest activities in the forest area subject to the conditions imposed by the U.P. Forest Corporation. Be that as it may, respondent no. 3 had filed a writ petition earlier challenging the policy dated 17.10.2002 and praying that mining lease be given to it in Chakrauta Reserved Forest Area. This writ petition of the respondent no. 3 bearing Writ Petition No. 48 of 2003 (MB) was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 3.12.2003. Consequently thereafter the respondent no. 3 preferred a Special Leave Petition (bearing SLP (Civil) No. 6452 of 2004) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was allowed vide judgment dated 12.12.2006. The Apex Court while rejecting the argument of respondent no. 3, as far as the policy of the Uttarakhand Government was concerned, came to the conclusion that this policy would not come in the way of grant of lease as far as petitioner was concerned since certain rights had accrued to the respondent no. 3 even before the policy had come into existence. Consequent to the said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, permission to do mining was given to the respondent no. 3 which has been challenged by the petitioner by means of present writ petition. Now since the mining lease / permission has been given to the respondent no. 3 consequent to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court finds no ground for interference in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has pointed out certain facts which were material for the adjudication of the said case were not presented before the Apex Court before such a judgment was given. The petitioner being aggrieved by the notification dated 29.8.2008 of granting approval for mining to respondent no. 3 had filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which has also been dismissed. Since mining lease / permission has been granted to the respondent no. 3 consequent to the decision of the Apex Court, which has not been changed even in a review / curative petition, this Court finds no reason for interference in the present matter. However, some new facts have been brought by the learned counsel for the petitioner by means of a rejoinder affidavit i.e. order dated 1.5.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Dehradun, wherein inter alia it has been stated that no mining will be done by respondent no. 3 between 1st July to 30th September. Since such a restriction has already been imposed by the concerned authority on respondent no. 3, there is no occasion for making any comments on this aspect as well. It goes without saying that in case respondent no. 3 wants to continue mining, the same can only be done under the valid licence after obtaining permission from the all the concerned authorities under the law. With the above observations, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 1.7.2009 Rathour