2025:HHC:43687 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1429 of 2019 Decided on: 15.12.2025 Rishi Raj Rana … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General for respondent- State. : Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) After making his submissions for some time, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that at this stage, the petitioner shall be satisfied, in case, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the State Geologist to reconsider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.02.2018, in light of the contents thereof and the order that was passed thereupon, i.e. Annexure P-8, which is a non-speaking order. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:43687 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the private respondent submits that this petition has lost its efficacy for the reason that the time period of the lease under challenge stands expired. He further submits that otherwise also there are seriously disputed questions of fact involved which cannot be gone into by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that presently a fresh lease has been entered into between the State and the private respondent, which is not under challenge. 3. Be that as it may, in light of the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of by setting aside impugned order Annexure P-8, because the same obviously is a non-speaking order, with the direction to the State Geologist to reconsider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.02.2018 and pass a fresh order thereupon after hearing the parties, i.e. the present petitioner and the private respondent. In case, the petitioner or any other party is aggrieved by the order to be passed by the State Geologist, then he/they may approach the Civil Court, in accordance with law. 4. It goes without saying that the order that has been passed by the court in this writ petition shall not affect the mining work being carried out by the private respondent, provided the same 3 2025:HHC:43687 is being done in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge December 15, 2025 (narender)