LAWS(MPH)-2014-2-50

AMAN STONE CRUSHER Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On February 05, 2014
Aman Stone Crusher Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Short question is involved in deciding the writ petition that whether the order passed by the Collector is within his power and authority and whether it is in violation of order dt.30.1.2012 passed in W.P.No.7573/2011. Respondents have also filed their reply. Hence, the petition is heard and disposed of finally.

(2.) The petitioner was granted a quarry lease of a land area 4.892 hectare of survey No.416 and 417, situate at village Mau, District Gwalior under the provisions of M.P.Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the 'Rules of 1996') for a period of ten years from 19.5.2004 to 18.5.2014. He was granted NOC from the relevant departments. The petitioner established a crusher for converting minerals into B.T. Metal. He had received loans from the banks. The lease was cancelled by the Collector vide order dt.29.10.2011. He challenged the aforesaid order in a Writ Petition, which was registered as W.P.No.7573/2011. Division Bench of this court vide order dt.30.01.2012 disposed of the writ petition with the following directions :-

(3.) The Collector granted permission to the petitioner to continue mining operations vide order dt. 03.03.2012. A show cause notice was issued by the Collector on 2.4.2012 to the petitioner. By the aforesaid notice, the petitioner was directed to show cause that the petitioner installed water sprinkler system, however, the system was not sufficient to prevent air pollution and the petitioner had been using GDA roads for transportation of vehicles and he was also making deep hole blasting, hence, why the mining lease be not cancelled. The petitioner submitted reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. He denied the fact that the water sprinkler system was insufficient. He further pleaded that he constructed a tank capacity of 40,000 ltrs. The sprinklers were in operation all the time. Some tranches were also constructed so it was not possible to use roads of GDA Shatabdipuram. The petitioner further pleaded that he was not using deep hole blasting. He further submitted that he was willing to obey all the conditions, which may be imposed by the Collector.