RAM CHANDER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated September 12, 1985, passed by Respondent No. 1 and order dated November 16. 1984, passed by Respondent No. 2 and also show cause notice dated March 21, 1984, issued by respondent No. 2 and writ of mandamus requiring the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to operate the mining area leased out to him under the lease deed dated August 5, 1983 and for directions restraining the respondents from interfering in the possession and working of the petitioner in the said area. A direction is also sough restraining the respondents from leasing this area to anyone else.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioner had discovered the silica sand in the village of Gothra Mohabata bad. District Faridabad(Haryana) in the year 1981. Petitioner is stated to be involved in the trade and occupation of mining and is holding a Certificate of approval under Rule 4 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 from Respondent No. 2. The petitioner applied for mining lease of silica sand under the discoverer's prelerential rights to obtain such a lease on December 24, 1981, but the State of Haryana respondent No. 2 did not choose to sanction the lease to the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Central Government against the order of the State Government and the Central Government vide order dated April 5, 1983, directed respondent No. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner afresh on merits within 200 days and thereupon respondent No. 2 granted the lease vide lease deed dated August 5, 1983, in respect of 5911 Kanals 12 Marlas located in the said village to the petitioner and the petitioner is stated to have been given possession of the area on August 21, 1983.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the area leased o to the petitioner wain the geological belt which extends to the area lying in Delhi and there has been no demarcation of boundaries between areas of Delhi and respondent No. 2 at the spot. It was averred that the mining operations in the adjacent area of Delhi were being carried out in haphazard, unsystematic and unscientific way by some local contractors which has resulted in dangerous mining bringing about some fatal accidents also. It was pleaded that in Delhi certain steps were taken to get the mining operations done through State Corporations but due to unusual population explosion illegal mining in that area continued to operate. It was pleaded that the area allotted to the petitioner was virgin land and the petitioner started mining operations but it is alleged that within 12 days or so i.e. on September 3, 1983, the inspection of the petitioner's mines was carried out and it was pointed out that certain dangerous mines have been brought into existence by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, his area was demarcated only on August 21, 1983. The petitioner also gave out the facts that there arose certain quarrels between petitioner's workers and the owners of mines of adjoining Pali Silica sand mines and the S.H.O. Ballabgarh alongwith police party had arrived at the spot and they were also injured by the attacking workers of the other side and a dispute was raised regarding demarcation of the areas and a commission was appointed on August 21, 1983, for demarcating the area. According to the petitioner, the demarcation was carried out by the new commission only on September 11, 1983. It was averred in the petition that the inspection done on September 3, 1983, could not be pertaining to the mines of the petitioner because there was no proper demarcation of area at that time and there is possibility that dangerous mines, being worked by some unauthorised persons, were inspected and a wrong report was given that the petitioner's mines were dangerous. The petitioner alleged that the State Government of Haryana had from the very beginning hostile and malafide attitude towards the petitioner inasmuch as it was not willing to grant the lease to the petitioner who in law was entitled to have it and was forced to grant the lease due to intervention of the Central Government and thus, the false inspection report had been obtained through subordinate officers in order to have some ground to cancel the lease of the petitioner. The petitioner also gave detailed facts with regard to his efforts to get the land demarcated properly but without any success. The petitioner has made reference to provisions of Mines Act, 1952, to show that no proper inspection has been made. On the basis of inspection carried on September 3, 1983, a letter was issued to the petitioner dated September 30, 1983, requiring the petitioner not to employ any workers in operating those dangerous mines. According to the petitioner, as his efforts to get the area demarcated properly did not succeed and some unauthorised persons were illegally carrying on mining work in the adjacent areas and quarrels were taking place, the petitioner decided to stop his mines and he dosed his mines on November 5, 1983 and sent the intimation to the Director of Mines Safety. It was also alleged that Police Check Post and the Check Post installed by the petitioner were removed from the spot and illegal mining of the area has been allowed to be indulged in with connivance of same high ups. The petitioner has made reference to an order made on March 23, 1984, by the said Director under Section 22(3) of the Mines Act prohibiting employment of any labour in the said dangerous mines. It is alleged that such orders had been issued also in respect of owners of other mines in Faridabad District. It is alleged that this order was made on an alleged inspection done on February 21, 1984. It is the case of the petitioner that the operation of the mines in the area comprising 100 sq. kilo metres could not have been carried out in one day and it appears that the orders under Section 22(3) of the Mines Act were made by the Director in respect of all the mines as there were some serious conditions developed regarding' operation of mines by unauthorised persons. The petitioner has mentioned that the authorities had assured that the genuine mines owners would be allowed to operate the mines after authorised survey had been made in respect of their mines. Then the petitioner made reference to the orders of the Director made in connection with the other mines owners allowing them to operate their mines subject to certain conditions.