##PAGE1##

Serial No.08

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

Case:- WP(C) No.3592/2025

M/s Basantar Stone Cursher

…..Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Himanshu Beotra, Advocate

Vs

UT of J&K & Ors.

.….Respondent(s)

Through:

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE

ORDER

(30.12.2025)

1. The petitioner is said to be aggrieved of closure report of

his stone crusher bearing business name as “M/s

Basantar Stone Crusher” on account of purported non-

compliance of requisite as mandated in terms of S.O.

No.60 dated 23.02.2021.

2. Present is 2^nd writ petition, joining first writ petition-WP(C)

No.3012/2024 also filed by the petitioner and is pending

disposal before this Court wherein by virtue of an order

dated 23.12.2024, this Court has directed the J&K

Pollution Control Committee, Jammu to consider the case

of the petitioner under the rules for issuance of

NOC/Consent to Operate without insistence on the prior

fresh title verification report/certificate as per the

order/circular impugned dated 06.02.2024

WP(C) No.3592/2025

2

3. Consequent upon said direction, J&K Pollution Control

Committee has come forward with its order No.32 JKPCC

of 2025 dated 14.11.2025 holding the petitioner not

entitled to issuance of „Consent to Operate‟ for lack of

essentials as set out in said order dated 14.11.2025

4. The petitioner is said to be possessing no license from the

Mining Department to which the petitioner submits that

the same is not required as the petitioner is not indulging

in the mining.

5. The petitioner is also said to have failed in earning

requisite No Objection Certificate (NOC) regarding title

verification of land and its usage from the Deputy

Commissioner concerned, and lastly CTO (R) for the year

2023 issued with the condition that site papers from the

Revenue Department with Geo-reference as per Rule 10 of

S.O. No.60/2021 not obtained within a period of three

months.

6. The petitioner has come forwarded with this present writ

petition for assailing Order No.32 JIPCC of 2025 dated

14.11.2025

7. In the entire writ petition, the petitioner has not set up

any averment as to how the site of the stone crusher is

legally relatable to the petitioner in terms of ownership

and possession.

WP(C) No.3592/2025

3

8. Mr. Himanshu Beotra, Advocate for the petitioner refers

this Court to the sale deeds as well as mutation related

therewith.

9. Since an essential fact relating to the very ownership

site of stone crusher has itself not being pleaded in the

writ petition for the reasons best known to be petitioner,

this Court cannot entertain the produced sale deeds to

act upon the fact that the petitioner is the title holder of

the site whereupon the stone crusher is actually located,

unless and until there are pleadings to said effect and of

fact by reference to the sale deeds.

10. In view of the deficiencies, learned counsel for the

petitioner seeks to withdraw the writ petition with liberty

to file a fresh one so as to come up with the full pleadings

for enabling this Court to examine the impugned order.

11. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty

granted to file fresh.

12. In the event of fresh writ petition being filed by the

petitioner on account of the liberty hereby reserved,

certified copy of this order shall also be also annexed with

the fresh writ petition.

(RAHUL BHARTI)

JUDGE

JAMMU

30.12.2025

Sneha

WP(C) No.3592/2025

4