AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sachin Shankar Magadum J
Learned Additional Government advocate is directed to take notice for respondents 1 to 4.
Heard. Perused the grounds urged in the review petition.
The grievance of the review petitioner is, at paragraph 5 of the order under review, this Court has not properly appreciated the report submitted by the competent authority. However, on perusal of the joint inspection report, which is culled out at paragraph 4 of the order under review, we would find that this Court has taken cognizance of the report submitted by the competent authority. Paragraph 6 of the order clearly indicates that respondents 6 to 8 have licence for quarrying and it was found by the authority on spot inspection that respondents 6 to 8 are carrying on quarrying activities in accordance with law.
Insofar as grievance of the review petitioner against respondent No.5 is concerned, paragraph 6 of the order clearly indicates that respondent No.5 was found to be carrying on illegal quarrying.
If notices are issued under the Act, consequences would follow and the authorities are bound to take appropriate action. It is in this background, there is no error apparent on the face of the order.
Hence, the review petition is dismissed.
Since the review petition itself is dismissed, the question of condoning the delay in filing the review petition does not arise. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2021 also stands dismissed.