FARIDABAD GURGAON MINERALS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unconcerned about the degradation of environment due to mining activities, the petitioner-company has approached this court with a strange prayer. Despite having made a kill by extracting minerals for nearly seven years, the greed and profit making concern of the petitioner has remained unsatisfied. The intervention by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to stop mining activity in the Aravlli Hills Area close to the borders of Delhi has not in any manner deterred the petitioner-company to continue with their exploits. Profit is the only motive with the petitioner with no other concern. Their action is having an adverse irreversible effect on the ecology of the area as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As noted, the mines in the Aravalli Hills Area are usually located in the clusters in remote mineral rich districts of the area where living standards are low and understanding of people towards environmental poor. The attitude of the mining community has been completely to ignore the environmental concerns, the aim being to make quick bucks. No wonder, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had to put a complete ban on the entire mining activites in the Aravalli Hills Area. Still, the persons like the petitioner were able to breathe through this ban order by seeking modification of the same as Annexure P-12, dated 13th April, 2006 would show.

(2.) The perusal of Annexure P-12 would reveal that photograph showing plying of large number of trucks per day was advanced as ground to seek ban on mining activities even in this area being mined by the petitioner. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to put ban in this area under the control of the petitioner-company for mining, yet the court asked for a report to determine the impact of mining activity and its effect on enviornment in this area and then to consider whether it would be possible to permit mining in this area by strictly complying with the requisite safeguards to save the enviornment from degradation or alternatively to prohibit mining activity. This opening is enough encouragement for the petitioner to approach this court with the relief in the present case, which is rather unfair, unreasonable, and to an extent, absurd.

(3.) Petitioner-company has prayed for directions to the State of Haryana to decide its application submitted on 21st February, 2006 for grant of mining lease for silica sand, china clay and quartzite in the villages Khori Jamalpur and Sirohi of District Faridabad and to grant the same alongwith the mining lease for road metal and masonry stone minor minerals available in the same area. Rule 10A of the Punjab Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1964 (for short "the Rules") is invoked to say that this area should be given to the petitioner for mining in terms of principle of "one area one lessee". This prayer, when viewed in the factual background could easily be termed as unreasonable.