RANA MUNESHWAR KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, claiming himself to be the convenor of the "Protection Board for Ancient and Sacred Hills, Ramshilla, Pret-shilla, Brahmayoni and Bara'bar of Gaya (Bihar)", for quashing a notification of the State of Bihar, dated the 8th June, 1974 (Annexure 2) and the consequent communication of the same date by the Mines Commissioner, Bihar, to the Collector, Gaya Respondent (No. 2) (Annexure 1). Annexure 2 related to a hill on the southern fringe of the town of Gaya, known as Ramshilla hill, and has been issued under Rule 5 (2) of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (briefly 'the Rules') imposing certain restrictions on the grant of quarrying permit to the lessees who were allowed to intervene and have been added as Respondents Nos. 5 to 12 to this application by an order of the Bench dated the 28th April, 1975, declaring the entire eastern, northern and the western areas and 800 feet from the temple at the top of the said hill, towards the south, as reserved area for public purposes, in modification of an earlier notification dated the 12th December, 1970; in exercise of the aforesaid provision of the Rules (of 1963) then in force (Annexure 5). By the earlier notification dated the 12th December, 1970, the State Government had reserved the entire Ramshilla hill along with the two other hills surrounding the town of Gaya, namely, Pretshilla and Brahmayoni hills for public purposes and had declared that no mining lease would be granted in these hills at all and the "existing leases will not be renewed after the expiry of their present terms".

(2.) By virtue of the impugned notification (Annexure 2) relaxing the restriction in the grant of quarrying permit on the southern side of the Ramshilla hill beyond a distance of 800 feet from the temple, the State Government has granted leases in favour of the intervening respondents for quarrying purposes which has led the petitioner to move this Court. At the time of admission, the respondents, who were then impleaded, were restrained from carrying on quarrying or blasting operations on all the three hills, directly or through any agency. As this order affected the right of the intervenor lessees, they moved an application for their addition, and as already stated above, they were allowed to be added as respondents and file rejoinder, if any.

(3.) The application was originally heard by a Division Bench of this Court composed of Mr. Justice Sarwar Ali and Mr. Justice Nagendra Prasad Singh, who by their judgment dated the 1st of October, 1975, differed hi some of their conclusions. In the result, whereas Nagendra Prasad Singh, J. allowed the writ application and quashed the notification (Annexure 2) end the communication (Annexure 1) and restrained the respondents lessees from quarrying on the basis of the leases granted in their favour on the strength of the notification, Sarwar Ali, J. has held that the petitioner could not get any relief in this application inasmuch as the materials on the record were completely inadequate to establish that the right aforesaid is substantially interfered with by the grant of leases by the State Government. In consequence of this difference, this case has been laid before me.