DINESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Additional Advocate General states that the only grievance of the petitioner is that the action of the officials of the State is in violation of Notification dated 15.1.2016.

(2.) Learned counsel for the parties are ad adiem that the petition can be disposed of by making interim directions dated 6.5.2016 absolute, which are reproduced as under:-

(3.) The Union of India, is yet to file its reply, whereas, reply on behalf of the Secretary (Industries), Director of Industries and Mining Officer, Sirmaur, stands filed. It has been stated in the reply that as per the policy guidelines, a Joint Inspection Committee has already conducted the inspection under the Chairmanship of Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned alongwith other members/ representatives of the various departments i.e. Public Works, Irrigation & Public Health, Forest and Mining Officer, Sirmaur to identify and study the feasibility of the auction of river beds of District Sirmaur. The Committee after conducting spot inspection of different stretches of river beds recommended 28 numbers of sites for the grant of mineral concessions by way of auction as per the inspection report dated 16.10.2015. Subsequently, these areas have been proposed for the auction to be held on 6th & 7th May, 2016 well before 30 days prior to the date fixed for auction as per the requirement of law. Thus, according to these respondents, the auction of the stretches of river beds have been proposed as per the provisions contained in the Mining Act and River/Stream Bed Mining Policy Guidelines for the State of H.P. and, therefore, no exception to the auction can be taken by the applicant/petitioner.