IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3087 of 2024 Decided on: 04.09.2025 M/s Thakur Ruhani Stone Crusher … 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. Deepak Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. : Mr. Dhiraj Thakur, Advocate for respondent No. 4. : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sugandh Verma, Advocate for respondent No. 5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has approached this Court, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs:- “a) That the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 Annexure P-4 passed by respondent No.3 whereby he has suspended the mining operation and operation of stone crusher may kindly be quashed and set aside. b) That the impugned notice dated 05.04.2024 (Annexure P6) issued by the respondent No.5 may kindly be quashed and set aside.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner today drew the attention of the Court to the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 3 in general and Para-7 thereof in particular. He submitted that as it is evident from the averments made in this Para that the shortcomings pointed out by the Officer concerned stand meted out by the petitioner and as it has also been mentioned therein that in CWPIL No.65 2023, in which also the petitioner is one of the respondents, the Hon’ble Division Bench stands informed that the mining activity being carried out by the petitioner within the mining area. 3. Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as also learned Deputy Advocate General, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.4, this petition is disposed of with the direction that in light of the response filed by respondents No.1 to 3, let the Mining Officer concerned again visit the sight of the petitioner within a period of one week from today and in case the petitioner rectifies all the shortcoming pointed out by the Authority concerned, then appropriate order be passed by the Authority. It goes without saying that till then, the interim protection granted by the Court to the petitioner shall continue. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 04, 2025 (narender)