IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.701 of 2010 Date of decision : 16.9.2010. Kamal Dutt and others …Petitioners Versus. State of H.P. & others …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge . The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting ? No For the Petitioner (s): Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl.A.G. for respondents No.1,2 & 4. Mr.Anil Chauhan, counsel for respondent No.3. Mr.R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr.Mehar Chand, counsel for respondents No. 5 to 7. Deepak Gupta, J. By means of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the sanction granted to the respondent No.6 by respondents 2 to 5 for installation of a stone crusher on various grounds. On 16.7.2010 we had passed a detailed order directing the Deputy Commissioner to actually visit the spot and submit a report with regard to the distance of the stone crusher from abadi deh, educational - 2 - institutions, hospitals etc. Later the order was modified and the Additional District Magistrate, Hamirpur was directed to comply with the directions. The Additional District Magistrate has submitted his report. We have perused the same. We find from the perusal of the record that there is virtually no reasonable ground to set- aside the sanction of the stone crusher granted in favour of the respondent No.6. Sh.Bimal Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners has objected to the report on the following grounds: i) That the ADM has not measured the distance between the stone crusher and abadi in village Dartal; ii) That the ADM has not measured the distance between the stone crusher and abadi in village Dohag; iii) That the ADM in his report has not made any mention about the existence of two Anganwari Centers or their distance from the stone crusher; iv) That the ADM has not given the distance between the stone crusher and other two wells situated in village Dohag. v) That the ADM has exceeded the directions given by this Court. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners raised the aforesaid objections which they - 3 - are now raising before the ADM. When we passed our order we had clearly stated that the ADM will give notice to the persons and in case the objectors wanted such places to be measured it was their duty to have requested the ADM to measure the distances of the places which they now allege should have been measured. There is nothing which prevented the petitioners from handing over a written representation to the ADM on the spot itself. In view of the fact that the objectors made no such representation or objection before the ADM, they cannot be permitted to raise such objections at this stage. We also find from a perusal of the record that the ADM has found that the crusher is not in any manner affecting the people of the area. Therefore, we find no merit in the writ petition which is dismissed. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. September 16, 2010. ( Sanjay Karol ), J. PV