KUMAR BRICK WORKS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Kumar Brick Works through its partner Sri Laxman Das and Laxman Das himself, have filed this petition for quashing the directions contained in the letter dated 7.2.1998 issued by the prescribed authority, Mines and Minerals, Barellly, respondent No. 2 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) and the letter dated 16.2.1998, issued by the Mining Inspector, Office of the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Mining Section, Bareilly, respondent No. 3 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition). The petitioners have further prayed for issuing direction to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for not causing any interference in the smooth preparation of the brick over plot No. 302 and in operating the brick kiln in village Ghanghora Ghanghori and also not to stop the minor mining and preparation of brick and further to renew the permit of the petitioners for the said purpose for the coming financial year on payment of royalty and fee.

(2.) The petitioner No. 1, Kumar Brick Work is the partnership firm and the petitioner No. 2 is one of its partners. Kumar Brick Works is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of bricks. It was established sometimes in the year 1996 and carries on manufacturing activities in the village Ghanghora Ghanghori, police station Bhojipura district Barellly. The petitioners claim to have purchased the clay of plot No. 302, which is situate in village Rahpara Karim Bux at the border of the village Ghanghora Ghanghori. It is averred by the petitioners that they had applied for licence for running the brick-kiln in village Ghanghora Ghanghori to the concerned Zila Panchayat. The petitioners deposited the necessary licence fee for running two chiminies for brick-kiln for the years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998 99 after the permission for running the brick-kiln was granted. The petitioners also deposited the necessary fee for grant of permit to use clay for manufacture of bricks with respondent No. 2. After enquiry, the respondent No. 2 granted Mining Permit to the petitioner to prepare bricks from the clay of plot No. 302. The petitioners had deposited the amount of royalty, demanded by the respondent No. 2 also. The licence and permit granted by the respondent No. 2 was valid upto March 31. 1998, whereas the licence granted by the Zila Panchayat for running the brick-kiln was valid upto March 31, 1999. It is claimed by the petitioners that they had also taken consent to run the brick-kiln from the Divisional Officer, Pollution Control Board. The petitioners allege that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 started causing interference in the smooth functioning of the petitioners in the preparation of the bricks over the plot mentioned above on one pretext or another. The respondent No. 2 wrote a letter on February 7, 1998, directing the respondent No. 3 to lodge a first information report against the petitioners for preparation of bricks over plot No. 302 as he had not complied with the order to stop the preparation of the bricks. The respondent No. 3 in compliance of the said letter dated 17.2.1998 sent a letter dated 16.2.1998 to the Station Officer Police Station, Bhojipura for lodging a first information report against the petitioners for violation of Section 4 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Rule 3 of the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the rules).

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed by Janardan Prasad Dwivedi, Mines Inspector, Office of the District Magistrate, Bareilly, on behalf of the respondents, it has been denied that any permit has been issued to Kumar Brick Works, Ghanghora Ghanghori and in fact the petitioners have interpolated the words Ghanghora Ghanghori in the copy of the challan by which they had deposited Rs. 20,400 (filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition) the village Ghanghora Ghanghori has been written subsequently and, thus, they had tried to mislead the Court. Since no royalty had been deposited by the petitioners for carrying on the mining activities in the village Ghanghora Ghanghori, the notice was issued for depositing the amount of royalty. It has further been stated that in the year 1992, the District Magistrate. Bareilly, had passed an order prohibiting the establishment of any new brick-kiln within the radius of 10 Kms. from the Air Force Station, Bareilly, and, therefore, there is no question of issuing any permit to any new brick-kiln in the village Ghanghora Ghanghori. It has further been stated in para 6 of the said counter-affidavit that the permit had been issued to the petitioners to operate brick-kiln in the village Bhojipura. In para 8 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that since the petitioners were operating their brick-kiln illegally within the prohibited area without any permit or licence, the respondents are fully justified in taking action against them. It has also been stated in para 10 of the counter-affidavit that under Rule 81B of the Air Craft Rules, 1937 framed under the provisions of the Air Craft Act, 1934, there is prohibition for depositing the rubbish, filth and other polluted and obnoxious matters within radius of 10 Kms. from the aerodrome reference point.