Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/19999/2026 on 4 November 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
2026:HHC:48722 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.19999 of 2026 Decided on: 04.11.2026 Madhuri Saini … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________
_
For the petitioner: Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Aditya Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “1. Quash and set aside the impugned Notifications dated 10.02.2022 (Annexure P-3) and 26.09.2024 (Annexure P-4) issued by the Respondent State enhancing the rate of surface rent, being arbitrary, ultra vires the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and unconstitutional.
2. Quash and set aside the consequential demand order dated 27.08.2026 (Annexure P-1) issued against the Petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid notifications.
3. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction restraining the Respondent State and its officials from enforcing or giving effect to the impugned notifications and demand order against the Petitioner.
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 03:18:40 :::CIS
2026:HHC:48722
4. Direct the Respondent State to renew the PMT of the Petitioner’s stone crusher in accordance with law, without insisting upon payment of the impugned demand of surface rent”
3. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the impugned order Annexure P-1, dated 13.08.2026, as well as the averments made in the petition, we are of the considered view that as impugned order Annexure P-1, in terms whereof, certain demands have been raised from the petitioner, has been issued without actually issuing any notice with reasons to the petitioner, informing him that such amount was due from him to the Department and providing an opportunity to the petitioner to respond thereto, this petition is disposed of by setting aside impugned demand notice Annexure P-1, dated 27.08.2026, but with the observation that respondents may issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, mentioning therein the reasons, on the basis whereof the amount is being demanded from the petitioner and after giving him some reasonable time to respond to the same, appropriate further action be taken, in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge (Yogesh Jaswal) Judge
November 04, 2026 (Rishi) High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 03:18:40 :::CIS