HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. : 334 of 2006 alongwith CWP No.933 of 2005. Reserved on: 31.12.2007. Decided on: 2.1.2008. CWP No.334 of 2006: Vijay Kumar ……… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. ………Respondents. CWP No.933 of 2005: Moti Ram ……..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …….Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. CWP No.334 of 2006: For the petitioner: Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No.1, 3 to 5 & 7: Mr.R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For respondent No.2 & 6: Mr.Vikram Thakur, vice Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. CWP No.933 of 2005: For the petitioner: Mr.Pankaj Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No.1 & 2: Mr.R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For respondent No.3: Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate. For respondent No.4: Mr.Surinder Sharma, Advocate. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. Per V.K. Ahuja, J.: This judgment shall dispose of both the writ petitions filed by the petitioners under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Briefly stated the facts of CWP No.334 of 2006 are that the petitioner had sought permission of the State of Himachal Pradesh for installing a stone crusher in Mohal Tikkari Ghumarnu, Mauja Lambagaon, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Kangra, H.P., which permission was accorded by the Government of H.P. on 10.8.2005. The land measuring 203 kanals was leased out to him and on the grant of such lease, the petitioner had fulfilled all the formalities required for the grant of such lease. The petitioner alleged that he raised a loan to the tune of Rs.24,10,352/- from a Cooperative Society and huge funds were spent on installing the machinery. The petitioner commenced the work of installing of machinery after proper demarcation was given by the revenue authorities but local residents of the area resorted to obstruct the execution of the work. A public interest litigation was filed against the petitioner in CWP No.933 of 2005 and an interim order was passed by the court staying the execution of such project. The said interim stay was vacated after the High Court considered the reply of the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra that the stone crusher sought to be launched by the petitioner conforms to all the codal formalities. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the District Administration for uninterrupted execution of the project but no action was taken by the District Administration for which the petitioner is incurring loss of Rs.6,000/- per day. The petitioner submitted an application to the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Jaisinghpur for laying down the power supply line. He alleged that there is no requirement to obtain a No Objection Certification from the public of the area as demanded by the Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and any action of the local administration and that of HPSEB in depriving the petitioner from commissioning the stone crusher in a legal manner led the petitioner to file the petition for appropriate directions praying that the letters issued by the HPSEB may be quashed, who may be ordered to provide power supply to the stone crusher of the petitioner and the local administration to provide assistance to the petitioner for the commissioning of the stone crusher. Reply was filed by the respondents. During the course of hearing of the petition, it was informed to this court that the land in question was demarcated by Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar, Jaisinghpur. The demarcation was also carried out by SDM and it was found that there is overlapping of areas in Mohal Tikkari Ghumarnu and Mohal Kutahan. This Court had ordered the Settlement Department for the removal of the overlapping and accordingly the SDM, Jaisinghpur demarcated the areas of both the Mohals i.e of Mohal Tikkari Ghumarnu and of Mohal Kutahan. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that against the report submitted by the Settlement Officer, he has filed an appeal which is still pending before the Divisional Commissioner and the petitioner will be bound by the final order on appeal against the order of the Settlement Officer and in case any such directions are issued to him for changing the location of the stone crusher set up by him, in pursuance of the said order, he will comply with the orders issued by the District Administration accordingly since the lands of both the Mohals were alleged to be overlapping with each other. It is clarified that the petitioner Vijay Kumar shall have the right to file an appeal against the order of the Divisional Commissioner, if permitted by law, and he shall abide by the final report submitted in this regard. The stone crusher is presently being run by the petitioner, as informed and accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with these observations that the petitioner shall comply with the final order passed in demarcation proceedings and shall also abide by the directions issued to him for shifting of the stone crusher, if required, as per the sanction granted in his favour. In so far as the facts of writ petition No.933 of 2005 are concerned, the petitioners had prayed that they had made representation to the local administration against the sanction of the stone crusher in favour of the petitioner Vijay Kumar in the above case since a School was nearby and the stone crusher had been installed illegally. In view of the fact that the land has to be demarcated by the Settlement Authorities and the petitioner had agreed to abide by the final report of demarcation and the directions issued to him, as in the above case, the present writ petition also does not survive since the location of the stone crusher may have to be changed after the final report is received in the above case. The petitioners in both the writ petitions shall be at liberty to approach this Court afresh if the necessity arises due to changed circumstances. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. In view of the final disposal of the main petitions, all the pending applications in both the writ petitions shall also stand disposed of. (Deepak Gupta), J. (V.K. Ahuja), J. January 2, 2008. (TILAK)