BHAJAN PAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos.1 to 3 and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioner questions the action of the third respondent in granting the fourth respondent a mining lease, based on what the petitioner claims to be a map furnished by the fourth respondent containing interpolations, resulting in their being granted permission to carry out mining operations in Survey No.343, though it is not contiguous to Survey Nos.338, 339, 340 and 341, and for which a mining lease could not have been granted to the fourth respondent.

(3.) The petitioner places reliance on a map which he claims to have obtained from the revenue department on 28.9.2016, and seeks to compare it with the map which he alleges as forming the basis for grant of a mining lease to the fourth respondent.