BHARAT STONE CRUSHER vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — CWP/14869/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 13th May 2026.
CNR: PHHC010811312026
e-Filing Number
11-05-2026
Filing Number
CWP/29410/2026
Filing Date
11-May-2026
Registration No
CWP/14869/2026
Registration Date
11-May-2026
Judge
Justice (To Be Nominated) , Mr. Justice Rohit Kapoor
Coram
Justice (To Be Nominated) , Mr. Justice Rohit Kapoor
Category
18.13 - MINES AND MINERALS ( 450 )
Judicial Branch
WRITS -I BRANCH
Decision Date
13-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
--DISPOSED OF
Last updated 01-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.BHARAT STONE CRUSHER
Adv. HARSH VASU GUPTA
-
2.State of Punjab through its Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Punjab
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
-
2.State of Punjab through its Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Punjab
-
3.State Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology, Punjab
-
4.Superintending Engineer, Drainage cum Mining Division
-
5.Executive Engineer, Shri Anandpur Sahib, Drainage cum Mining Division
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-May-2026
Justice (To Be Nominated),mr. Justice Rohit KapoorView PDF
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed M/S Bharat Stone Crusher's writ petition, quashing demand notices and appeal orders against the petitioner, following its earlier decision in CWP-22658-2025. The court permitted the State of Punjab to re-proceed against the petitioner only by strictly following proper royalty determination procedures under applicable rules and policies, with advance notice specifying violations and providing reasonable hearing opportunity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CWP/14869/2026
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed M/S Bharat Stone Crusher's writ petition, quashing demand notices and appeal orders against the petitioner, following its earlier decision in CWP-22658-2025. The court permitted the State of Punjab to re-proceed against the petitioner only by strictly following proper royalty determination procedures under applicable rules and policies, with advance notice specifying violations and providing reasonable hearing opportunity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts