KRISHAN SINGH RATHORE Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, wherein he has made a grievance that although his case has been recommended for grant of lease for extraction of minerals from a piece of land applied by him, but no action has been taken by the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner alleges that he had applied for mining lease for extraction of stones in Mauza Manu, Tehsil Nerwah, Distt. Shimla, comprising in Khasra No.49/1, measuring 1 -12 -70 Hects. The application was made in accordance with the Himachal Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Revised Rules, 1971. The petitioner submits that his application was complete in all respects and a joint inspection was carried out by the District Mining Officer, Range Forest Officer, Tehsildar, Assistant Engineer, Irrigation and Public Health, Junior Engineer, H.P.P.W.D. and Assistant Engineer, Irrigation and Public Health as well as B&R, Nerwa. The joint inspection report (Annexure P -1), recommending the case of the petitioner, was submitted to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chopal in October, 1999. Petitioner submits that after the joint inspection of the area was carried out, another report was sought for from the Range Officer, Tharoch and the Patwari of the Forest Department. These officers submitted the report to the Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal on 11th May, 2000. The case of the petitioner is that the area to be granted for mining is not a Demarcated Protected Forest or an Un -demarcated Protected Forest and is fit for being used for extraction of stones/mining etc. According to the petitioner, vide a letter (Annexure P -6), the Divisional Forest Officer, Tharoch has recommended that the mining lease as asked for be granted. The petitioner alleges that his application should have been allowed, but according to him, some interpolation has been made in the papers and that one Mr.Amar Singh Jaswal, Forest Range Officer, tampered with the joint inspection report by adding some words in the same which would render the area unfit for mining. According to him, this Officer Mr.Amar Singh Jaswal, has since retired. The petitioner further supports his contention for grant of mining lease by alleging that applications of S/Shri Partap Singh and Moti Sigh Chauhan were allowed, but in case of the petitioner, no action has been taken.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail. The petitioner submits that in view of the joint inspection report being in his favour and recommendations made by the inspecting officers, direction should be issued to the respondents to grant him the mining lease. The respondents have resisted the claim of the petitioner.