2025:HHC:21169 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1046 of 2020 Decided on: 03.07.2025 Mr. Vipin Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : M/s Prashant Sharma and Deven Krishan Khanna, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the flowing reliefs:- “1. That impugned order contained in Annexure P-18 kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing a writ of certiorari, and thereby the in view of Annexure P-1 to P-6, the Respondents may kindly be directed to consider 21500 MT of raw material duly crushed by the Petitioner as raw material from legal sources and further to remit penalties imposed in lieu of crushing of said material as these documents clearly demonstrates that this material has been attained by the Petitioner from legal sources of raw material. 2 That respondents may kindly be directed to calculate the amount of electricity that has been used by the Petitioner & his labour for various purposes such as governance of his office and for day to day need of labour living at site. 3. It is most humbly prayed that due to negligence of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:21169 Respondents, the Petitioner has been forced to shut his stone crusher on numerous occasions as Respondents were not issuing Petitioner No due Certificate due to their own wrong calculation of penalties and without no dues certificate, the Petitioner could not attain renewal of permission for mining and same has caused immense financial losses to the Petitioner, hence Respondents may kindly be directed to pay compensation to the Petitioner for causing unnecessary hurdles in the operation of his stone crusher. 4 It is prayed that Respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for EIA clearance grant of short term permit.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Annexure P-17 was the representation made by him to the Authorities and in terms of the impugned order (Annexure P-18), i.e. order dated 07.12.2019, the penalty that has been calculated by the State Geologist is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing this order the Authority did not take into consideration the contention raised by the petitioner in the representation with regard to 21500 M.T. of the stock crushed by the petitioner which was available with him on account of crushing of stones and boulders etc. which were extracted in the course of construction of Dharampur-Chupanu road, which contract was given to the petitioner in the light of the fact that he is a registered Class-A Contractor. 3. Though, learned Additional Advocate General tried to 3 2025:HHC:21169 justify the order passed by the State Government, dated 07.12.2019, however, he could not point out as to wherein in the said order this issue was addressed and redressed by the Authority. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner again reiterated that it is only because said stock crushed by the petitioner was ignored by the Authority, huge penalty stands imposed upon the petitioner. He submits that if this stock is taken into consideration, the petitioner would not be liable to pay any penalty. 5. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the fact that the said issue raised by the petitioner in his representation, dated 10.07.2018, has not been dealt with by the Authority in order dated 07.12.2019, this petition, as prayed for, is disposed of on this short count by setting aside the order passed by the Authority, dated 07.12.2019, with further direction to the said Authority to take a fresh call on the representation of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case and the representation be decided by the Authority concerned strictly in terms of the contents thereof as well as response thereto, but the averments made therein in totality be taken into consideration while passing a speaking order. The parties be given an opportunity of being heard and in case the parties intend to supplement their contentions before the Authority, then one opportunity in this regard be given. 4 2025:HHC:21169 6. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 03, 2025 (Rishi)