D.N. Patel, J.@mdashLearned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that several writ petitions which are similar in nature have been filed before this Court, which are more than two dozen in numbers, in which this Court has issued a Rule and has granted interim relief by detailed orders which are at Annexure-7 series to this petition. In the main Writ Petition (C) No. 3277 of 2011 whereby this Court has stayed the direction given by the Respondent directing not to continue the crusher unit like the present Petitioner, and therefore, let the Petitioner be also allowed to continue its activity of the crusher unit.
2 Having heard the counsel of all sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that similarly situated more than two dozen matters have been filed by different crusher units before this Court. Several orders have been passed in favour of those crusher units which have been annexed herewith at Annexure-7 series. For the same reasons stated in the orders annexed at Annexure-7 series in several writ petitions like Writ Petition (C) No. 3277 of 2011 Rule and for these reasons this Petitioner is also hereby allowed to continue with iron ore crushing activity till next date of hearing. The reasons stated in the order dated 27th June, 2011 in Writ Petition (C) No. 3277 of 2011 are the reasons for this interim relief.
3. This writ petition will be heard along with Writ Petition (C) 3277 of 2011.
4. Rule is made returnable on 25th July, 2011
