In this case, the plaintiff challenged the decision refusing him a permit for quarry mining of silica quartz in a protected forest. The plaintiff claims that the administration had acted in a discriminatory manner and had denied him his right to equal treatment because it refused to grant him a mining permit but granted it to one of its competitors.

The plaintiff showed that the planned mining activities were similar to the one of his competitors and would have had the same impact on the environment. He consequently claimed that his rights to equal treatment as provided by Article 12(1) of the Constitution had not been respected.

The Supreme Court held that the violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution was established but also that the refusal of the permit was the right decision to take and should also have been taken for the competitor. As a result, the Supreme Court ordered the authorities to stop issuing permit for mining in this protected area and condemned the competitor to restore the concerned land back to its original position.