CWP No.707 of 2007. 03.03.2008 Present: Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Though there is a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition in the light of the allegations made by respondent No.4 and petitioner No.1’s father and respondent No.4 have some litigation in the civil Court and the father of petitioner No.1 is also involved in the mining business. Without entering into this dispute since a categorical report has been submitted by the State Geologist, the interest of justice will suffice if it is provided that the State shall ensure that the mining is only being done only at the place for which the licence has been granted and it is the duty of the State to monitor so as mining is only done at the prescribed place. We hope and trust that the State will monitor and in case some illegal mining is found anywhere in the State, proper action would be taken in accordance with law. Before we part with, we would like to observe that the Village Revenue Officer (Patwari) has issued some certificate, though the stand of the State is otherwise. How and under what circumstances the Village Revenue Officer (Patwari) had issued the certificate, which does not appear to be issued in his official capacity. From the perusal of the certificate it appears that the certificate issued by the Patwari is on computer typing and there is no such facility available to the Patwari. It creates doubt in the mind of the Court. Therefore, the Collector of the District shall enquire into the matter and take necessary action in the matter. -2- With these observations the writ petition stands disposed of finally. In view of the disposal of the writ petition all pending applications are disposed of. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. March 03, 2008. ( Surjit Singh ), J. (rc)