JAIPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Public Interest Litigation Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus in the matter of arbitrary and illegal grant of Mining Lease without following the procedure prescribed in the Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 by the State Authorities and permitting to establish crushers by respondents.

(2.) AS pleaded in the petition, the petitioners are agriculturists and they are public spirited persons. Their contention is that in village Paragon Tehshil Datia, the AKS showing the Survey Nos. 72/1, 72/2 and 73 are adjacent to Survey No. 78, 80, 81, 14, 13, 12 and 16 and the Survey No. 15 and 324 which are hillock has been taken up by the State Authorities for the grant of mining lease for establishing crushers and this Survey No. 15 and 324 are surrounded by agriculture land and mining officer has granted lease to the Respondents No. 5 to 8 and to some other persons for a period of 10 years and land bearing Survey Nos. 311, 376, 380, 382 as has been shown in AKS is agricultural land belongs to the petitioners. Their contention in nutshell is that for excavation of the flagstone from the hillock and installation of crushers is to be blasted or broken up manually for preparation of various size of Gitti and to filter by way of revolving of the Mesh which emits huge amount of dust which will blow in air and later on would be settled in nearby agriculture field and the aforesaid crushed dust of the stone will damage all the standing crops and will also hamper the growing of seeds and drastically it will reduce the fertility of the land and as a result of settling of the crushed dust in the agriculture field will totally damage the cultivation and reduce the agricultural value of the land and soil and ultimately the agriculturist would be crop less and this will affect their fundamental rights of livelihood. It was further contended that if it is necessary to permit the installation of crusher, the same should have been permitted only after providing safeguard so that the same may not cause any damage to the agricultural land. It was further submitted that the Collector before granting lease has not taken into consideration the interest of the agriculturists and petitioners. Representation dated 5 -9 -2005 (Annexure -P/8) was also submitted to the Collector, District Datia indicating therein that the petitioners and other villagers have no other source of income except the agricultural land and if the mining lease is granted and crushers are allowed on spot, it will cause loss to the agriculturists. Earlier also a representation dated 2 -12 -2004 (Annexure -P/9) was submitted. A panchanama was prepared which is Annexure -P/10. It was also submitted that adjacent to the hillock, forest area is also situated and the mining operations will affect the forest area. Under Rule 5 Chapter II of M. P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, no grant of quarry can be made. As per Rule 5(2)(b) of Chapter II of M. P. Minor Mineral Rules. 1996, no quarry lease or trade quarry permit shall be granted in the forest land without the permission of appropriate authority as prescribed in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, within a distance of 75 metres from any bridge, National or State Highways, Railway line or 50 metres from any public place. No mining operation can be permitted within 5 km. Radius of the protected forest boundaries. As per Rule 45 of the M. P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, the activities will cause damage to the flora of the area, therefore, such permission is against the rules. The blowing dust will settle on the field and ultimately will reduce the productivity and make the land uncultivable and will also create ecological and other environmental imbalance. No Objection Certificate has also not been given by the Pollution Control Board and prayed that:

(3.) IT is further contended in the return of the State Government that before granting quarry lease all the conditions have been fulfilled and No Objection Certificate from Gram Panchayat, Forest, and permission from Pollution Control Board has been received. The copies of the relevant documents has been filed as Annexure -R/1 to R/4. It was further submitted that the joint inspection of the spot of survey No. 324 for grant of quarry lease to Respondent No. 5 was made by Patwari. Revenue Inspector, Mining Inspector and Naib Tehsildar and it was found that one 'Madiya' is situated about 100 metres away from the quarry lease. Copy of the joint inspection report is Annexure -R/5. The quarry lease has been sanctioned to the Respondents No. 5 to 8 on survey No. 324 and 15 and both the survey numbers are recorded as hills. Copies of relevant Khasras are Annexure - R/6 and 7. Copy of the AKS are Annexure -R/8 and 9, in which the area of lease has been demarcated. Though presently lease has been granted to respondents No. 5 to 8 but there is no mining operation on the spot. No crusher has been established till today on the spot. Therefore, the petition is totally premature and is liable to be dismissed. It is also submitted on behalf of the Government that while granting quarry lease certain conditions have been imposed by the State Government contained in Annexure -P/4 to P/17. Quarry lease has been allowed for mining manually only.