During the hearing, the court was apprised of the Survey of India: A practical reader guide

During the hearing, the court was apprised of the Survey of India: A practical reader guide

The Punjab and Haryana high court has directed the Punjab government to take action on a ‘Survey of India’ report identifying nearly 233 sites where illegal mining activities are allegedly being carried out in Pathankot and Gurdaspur districts, warning that the matter could be handed over to an independent agency if appropriate action is not taken.

The court noted that despite its previous order, the affidavit of the director (mining), Punjab, had not been filed. It directed the Punjab government to examine the Survey of India report and take appropriate action against the persons or officers found responsible. A division bench comprising chief justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and justice Rohit Kapoor issued the directions on September 24 while hearing a batch of petitions concerning alleged illegal mining in the two Punjab districts. It directed that the affidavit be filed within 48 hours, with an advance copy provided to the counsel for the petitioners. During the hearing, the court was apprised of the Survey of India report dated July 3, 2026, which identified nearly 233 sites where illegal mining activities were allegedly being carried out. The court granted the state four weeks to take action and directed it to submit an affidavit detailing the steps taken by the next date of hearing, November 16.

Taking note of the findings, the bench said the matter was serious and warranted immediate attention.

The bench further warned that failure to take appropriate action could lead to the court entrusting the investigation to an independent agency. It also made it clear that if the concerned officers failed to act forthwith, their personal responsibility would be fixed at the next hearing. The proceedings arose from a bunch of writ petitions in which allegations of illegal mining across areas of Pathankot and Gurdaspur had been raised. The court also dealt with an application filed by a petitioner seeking to place on record certain documents and facts that had emerged during the pendency of the writ petition.