CWP No. 15306 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 15306 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.8.2011 Vinod Kumar ..Petitioner v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Babbar Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rajesh Bindal, J. The petitioner, in the present case, has approached this court for setting aside of the auction notice (Annexure-P8) for mining with a further direction to the respondents to grant permit to the petitioner to carry on stone quarrying from the plot in question for the period the petitioner could not operate the mining on account of stay granted by the court, even though period for which the mining rights were granted is already over. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 25.7.2008, bid of the petitioner for ` 56,65,000/- for mining contract was accepted for the period from 21.8.2008 to 31.3.2011. An agreement to that effect was signed on 23.10.2008. After deposit of the requisite amount, the petitioner continued its business. The mining activities were directed to be closed by the Mining Officer, Mines & Geology Department, Narnaul vide his communication dated 28.2.2010 (Annexure-P4), in terms of the order CWP No. 15306 of 2011 [2] passed by this court in C.W.P. No. 4750 of 2008. Restrain on quarrying was reiterated by this court vide detailed judgment dated 6.7.2011, passed in C.W.P. No. 11096 of 2011, until the environment clearance is obtained in terms of notification dated 14.9.2006. The petitioner has approached this court on the issuance of auction notice dated 8.8.2011 (Annexure-P8) for award of permit for short term period for quarrying upto 31.12.2011. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that initially the petitioner was granted contract for quarrying from 21.8.2008 to 31.3.2011, however, he could not operate the same from 28.2.2010 onwards on account of stay granted by this court. Now once the State Government is granting permits for quarrying, the period for which the petitioner could not continue his business of quarrying, be extended further. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any merit in the contention raised. The award of contract of quarrying to the petitioner is governed by the contract signed between the parties on statutory form. It does not contain any clause with regard to extension of period of quarrying under any circumstance. Rather, it gives power to the State Government to even terminate the contract in public interest. Moreover, if mining was stopped on account of illegality under order of stay, remedy of the petitioner was by way of either challenge to order of stay or seek restitution by making out a case in proceedings where stay has been granted and not de hors the said proceedings. Thus, no case for extension of contract for quarrying is made out. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice 19.8.2011 mk CWP No. 15306 of 2011 [3]