1 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.2516 of 2018 Decided on: 26.11.2018 _____________________________________________________ Rana Randeep Singh ..........Petitioner .

Versus Union of India and Others .........Respondents ______________________________________________________ The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice.

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ______________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Abhimanyu Rathore and Ms. Poonam Gehlot, Advocates.

For the respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India, for r respondents/Union of India.

Mr. J.K. Verma, Mr. Adarsh Sharma and Ms. Ritta Goswami, Additional Advocate Generals, for respondents/ State.

                                                 Mr. Maan              Singh, Advocate, for
                                                 respondent            No.7/Pollution Control
                                                 Board.

Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate, for the respondents No.8 and 9.

_____________________________________________________ Surya Kant, CJ (Oral).

The instant writ petition has been purportedly filed in public interest alleging inter alia that respondents No.8 to 10 have been accorded mining permission by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (respondent No.6) to carry out mining in the area which is said to be surrounded by wildlife 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

corridor consisting of National Parks, Sanctuary and Conservation Reserves from almost all sides. The mining area is stated to be within two kilometres from Simbalbara Wild Life Sanctuary and .

within five kilometres of Kalesar National Park located in Haryana State, besides eight kilometres from the notified Asan Bird Conservation Reserve of Uttarakhand. The village of the petitioner is also stated to be situated near to the area for which mining permissions have been granted to the private respondents.

2. We do not want to express any opinion on the merits at this stage, especially keeping in view the overlapping and multiplicity of the issue sought to be raised by the petitioner, who has earlier approached the Learned National Green Tribunal, but as a result of rejection of his petition on the plea of limitation, has now approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter is sub judice.

3. Nonetheless, on certain issues regarding grant of consent to establish, consent to operate and consent to renew accorded in favour of respondent No.8 for establishing/running the stone crusher, the petitioner has filed statutory appeals under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It is stated that two appeals were filed by the ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2018 22:56:25 :::HCHP 3 petitioner on 15.11.2017 & 01.06.2018, respectively, but the Appellate Authority, namely the Secretary, Department of Environment and Science & Technology to the Government of .

Himachal Pradesh, has yet not decided those appeals.

4. At this stage, we thus deem it appropriate to dispose the instant writ petition with a direction to the above stated Appellate Authority to decide the pending appeals, after hearing the parties and by way of a reasoned order, within a period of

5. to three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

As regards to other issues, the petitioner shall be at liberty to segregate his objections and approach the Authorities concerned, who will examine his complaints and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law and after observing principles of natural justice.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

(Surya Kant) Chief Justice (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge November 26, 2018 (Yashwant/Narender) ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2018 22:56:25 :::HCHP