AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.S. Khehar, C.J.—The following order came to be passed on 7.12.2010:
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks an adjournment, so as to enable her to obtain instructions in respect of the objections raised in paragraph No. 1 of the statement of objections filed by Respondent No. 3.
List for further consideration on 19.1.2011.
In furtherance of the aforesaid order, learned Counsel for the Petitioner states, that the Petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the instant writ petition, and that, she may be relegated to her revisional remedy u/s 30 of the Miner Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957.
Consequent upon the aforesaid submission having made at the hands of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, we enquired from the learned Counsel for the Respondents whether the instant liberty should be granted to the Petitioner, as also, whether the pleadings in this case should be treated as the pleadings of the parties before the revisional authority. Learned Counsel for the Respondents answered to both the queries made by this Court in the affirmative.
In view of the above, the Petitioner shall file a complete set of the instant paper book before the revisional authority within two weeks from today. Learned Counsel for the rival parties shall appear before the revisional authority on 17.02.2011.
Since the private parties in this ease have affirmed that they are not carrying on any mining activities on the land in question, we hereby direct that neither of the parties shall carry on said activity till the revisional authority passes a final order.
We hope and expect the revisional authority to pass a well reasoned speaking order disposing of the controversy, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, preferably within three months from the first date of hearing expressed hereinabove.