1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8817 of 2026 Decided on: 04.06.2026 M/s Soami Stone Crusher …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Following order was passed in this matter on 03.06.2026 that also noticed the grievance of the writ petitioner:- “Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents-State. Petitioner’s contention is that joint inspection of the mining lease area and the proposed stone crusher site was carried out by the respondents on 11.11.2025. Pursuant to the joint inspection, all concerned departments issued no objection certificates to the petitioner. The requisite documents were deposited by the petitioner with respondent No.5- Mining Officer, Una, however, till date, respondent No.5 has neither taken any action for preparing site appraisal report nor signed the same. Petitioner alleges inaction on part of Mining Officer and also highlights preparation of site appraisal report qua some other joint inspection proceedings 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 carried out by the official of the respondents on 11.11.2025 itself qua some other proposed units. In view of above, let learned Deputy Advocate General to have instructions from the respondents. The site appraisal report if ready, be also placed on record. List the matter tomorrow (04.06.2026).” 2. Pursuant to above, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record office instructions dated 03.06.2026 from the Assistant Geologist-cum-Mining Officer, Una, District Una, H.P. inter alia conveying that during spot inspection conducted on 11.11.2025, the Joint Inspection Committee had observed that site applied for the establishment of the stone crusher unit by the petitioner does not fulfill the Siting Criteria No. 6 & 7 of notification dated 29.06.2021. The Project Proponent i.e. petitioner was also intimated about it vide office letter dated 19.11.2025 with advise to identify a suitable alternative site for establishment of stone crusher. The office letter dated 19.11.2025 has also been appended alongwith office instructions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of aforesaid office instructions alongwith decision of the respondents conveyed in the office letter dated 19.11.2025, the grievance of the petitioner raised in the instant writ petition stands redressed. The writ petition has been rendered infructuous. However, petitioner has reservation to the decision of the Joint Inspection Committee 3 as conveyed in office letters dated 03.06.2026 and 19.11.2025, Therefore, he seeks liberty for the petitioner for availing the appropriate remedy for the redressal of its surviving grievances. 4. Granting such liberty, writ petition to stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 04, 2026 Judge yogesh