SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the four writ applications have been preferred by different persons who claim to be mining lease holders and are carrying on mining operations in different plots of land near the Pretshilla Hills in the district of Gaya and are aggrieved by similar orders, by which they have been directed to remove their crushing machines from the aforesaid plots as the same has been declared as reserved/preserved/protected/ Archaeological spot/place. As all the petitioners are aggrieved by orders passed pursuant to the same notification, as such, with the consent of the parties all these four writ applications were heard together at length and are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THOUGH initially a stand had been taken by the petitioners that there has not been any publication of a notification in the official gazette as required under section 3(3) of the Bihar Ancient Monuments & Archaeological Sites Remains and Art Treasures Act, 1976, (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act ') as such before the said publication during pendency of disposal of objections filed by the writ petitioners, they cannot be and should not be restrained from operating their crushers in the mining area for which they had been granted valid lease, which persists. However, subsequently, by filing a supplementary affidavit a copy of the aforesaid notification dated 21.2.2002 issued under section 3(3) of the Act as published in the official gazette dated 16.8.2002 has also been brought on record and challenged.

(3.) MR . Sanjay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand, has contended that 'protected monuments and 'protected area ' are two distinct things. A protected monument may relate to a smaller area. The same may be a temple or otherwise but the 'protected area ' in an around may have a much larger para meter as has already been decided by the Supreme Court in one of its orders arising from this controversy itself and according to the learned counsel for the State, the scheme that no stone crushing operation may be carried out within a distance of half a kilo metre from the area so declared and as the area came within the protected area has been endorsed by the Supreme Court. As such, he has defended the notification under the aforesaid Act, by which mining operation in these plots have been stopped and direction has been issued for removal of the crushing machines and other materials from the said area.