IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (PIL) No. 27 of 2010 Rajendra Joshi …Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for the petitoenr. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) 1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The issue which is sought to be pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Kulhal Barrier alone should be permitted to carry the minor minerals, and that the permission to allow minor minerals to be carried out through Rampur Mandi Ghat is likely to result in tax evasion. 2. The aforesaid submission made at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner is vague and unsubstantiated. It is upto the Government to choose, keeping in view the convenience of the persons allowed to excavate minor minerals, as also, the convenience to recover tax, barriers through which they are to be permitted to enter into the territory of the State of Uttarakhand. It is not for a particular individual to opine on the issue in hand. 3. We find nothing wrong with the determination rendered by the respondents to allow entry into the territory of Uttarakhand through Rampur Mandi Ghat. 4. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 22.4.2010 Avneet