S. No. 109 Supp. Cause List-2 IN THE HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP (C) No. 598/2025 CM No. 1465/2025 M/S Highland Stone Crusher and Anr. …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Ms. Mehreen Altaf, Adv. Vs. UT of J&K and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Furqan Sofi, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE. ORDER 18.03.2025 1. In the instant petition, petitioners herein are seeking direction upon respondent No. 7 to decide the application bearing No. 4310866 dated 02.01.2024, for renewal of consent in favour of the petitioner. 2. It is stated that the petitioner is aggrieved of the acts and omissions on part of the respondents in as much as on one hand they have failed to consider and decide the application of the petitioners for grant of consent to operate which is filed before Respondent Pollution Control Committee, despite passing of more than a year from the date of application, and on the other hand respondents 4 and 5 are creating hindrances in the operation unit of the petitioner without any reasonable justification. 3. Petitioner unit is registered with the Directorate of Industries and Commerce as an MSME (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises) by virtue of provisional registration certificate vide No. 07/02/05160/TEMP/MSME dated 31.01.2009. 4. The permanent registration certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner unit by the Directorate of Industries and Commerce as an MSME on 26.11.2011. 5. It is stated that the petitioner unit in compliance with the rules also obtained No Objection Certificate from other department including Revenue Department as well as the Geology and Mining Department, way back in the year 2009. 6. The consent was also sought to operate from Respondent Pollution Control Committee, which was issued in favour of the petitioner and thereafter renewed from time to time. The recent renewal of consent was issued by respondent No. 6, 18.01.2023, which was valid for a period of one year, that is, up to January 2024. 7. It is stated that the petitioner immediately upon expiry of the consent order applied for renewal of the same through online mode bearing application No. 4310866 dated 02.01.2024 and also submitted the fee for the same for an amount of Rs. 9600/- which was duly received by the Respondent-PCC against proper receipt generated online. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Respondent Pollution Control Board, despite lapse of more than one year from the date of application, has failed to consider the application of the petitioner, as such, the petitioner unit has not having a valid consent order to operate the unit. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioners would feel satisfied if the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 7 to consider the application having been filed by the petitioners, dated 01.01.2024, within a reasonable period of time. Learned counsel for the respondents is not averse to the proposition being made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. Be that as it may, the instant petition is disposed of at the threshold thereby directing respondent No. 7 to consider the application for renewal dated 01.01.2024, filed by the unit of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date passing of this order by passing a speaking order thereof. 11. Respondents, however, are directed not to take any coercive measures without adopting due procedure. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 18.03.2025 Sakeena