WPPIL/72/2020
2022 Latest Caselaw 1516 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                AT NAINITAL

                      SRI JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.
                                  AND
                       SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE, J.

18TH MAY, 2022

WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 72 OF 2020

Between:

Khilap Singh Bisht ...Petitioner and

State of Uttarakhand and others.

...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner. : Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel.

Counsel for the respondents : Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel as a Special Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.

Mr. Vijay Bhatt,learned counsel for respondent No. 6.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following

JUDGMENT : (per Sri S.K. Mishra, A.C.J.)

Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the

petitioner, would submit that he is not in touch with his

client, and his attempts to contact his client have not

yielded any result.

2. Mr. Vijay Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of respondent No. 6, would argue that the writ petition has become infructuous in view of the fact that

the prayer of the writ petition was for the order by which

respondent No. 6 was given permission to establish stone

crusher as per the policy of 2015.

3. However, it is brought to our notice that such a

permission /license was granted to the private

respondent for a period of five years. After completion of

the lease period of five years, the lease was again

extended for further ten years.

4. Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, the learned counsel

for the Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution

Control Board, submits that the private respondent has a

valid consent to operate issued by the Uttarakhand

Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board till

March 31, 2027.

5. As such, the reliefs for which the present writ

petition was filed have come to a logical conclusion.

6. If at all, the petitioner is aggrieved by the

extension of the lease period by another period of ten

years, he should file an appropriate writ petition or PIL.

7. Hence, the present writ petition has become

infructuous and the same is dismissed as such. No order

as to costs.

8. In sequel thereto, all pending applications also

stand disposed of.

9. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued to

the parties, as per Rules.

________________ S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.

____________ R.C. KHULBE, J.

Dt: 18th May, 2022 Rathour