VISHNU KUMAR SINGHAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for declaring Section 29 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1953') ultra vires the Constitution of India being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, Prayer has also been made to quash the notification dated 13.11.2009 and to direct the respondents not to interfere in the mining operation of the petitioner in the mining lease. Facts are being noted from Civil Writ Petition No. 224/2010. Petitioner has submitted that mining lease had been granted in area one hectare for a period of twenty years w.e.f. 6.9.2000 in Village Angrawali, Tehsil Kaman, District Bharatpur. The petitioner had started working in the mining lease and has deployed machines including pock land, JCB, dumpers etc. Much investment has been made and 20 employees were also employed and in addition thereto, more than 30 labourers are working in the mining area and he has also set up huge establishment to carry out mining activities. The State Government under the pressure of some Saints and Sadhus vide order dated 27.1.2005, has closed the mining activities in 500 metres on either side of bridge Chaurassi Kos Parikrama Marg. On 29.5.2007, the State Government has issued notification under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 determining the route of the said bridge. Thereafter, on 20.6.2007, meeting of Sadhus and Saints was held and it was decided that no mining or crusher activity will be carried out within 500 metres. The mines of the petitioner fall beyond 500 metres. It is more than 1 km. from the bridge. Leases of fifteen mines which were within 500 metres have already been cancelled. The State Government acting upon Section 29 of the Act of 1953, vide order dated 20.4.2008 prematurely terminated the mining lease. Thereafter, the State Government vide notification dated 13.11.2009 declared the land in question as protected forest. Under the said provision of Section 29 of the Act of 1953, the Government has been given uncontrolled and unlimited power, Thus, proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the Act of 1953 is ultra vires the Constitution of India. Opportunity of hearing has not been granted. Thus, the provision and the action of the State are against the principle of 'audi alteram partem.' No enquiry has been done. The land belonging to the khatedars cannot be declared as protected forest. As huge amount has been invested, it is unfair to cancel the lease. The decision has been taken without due application of mind and amounts to colourable exercise of power.

(2.) A detailed reply has been filed by the respondents denying the averments made in the writ petitioners. It has been stated that the proviso to Section 29(3) of the Act of 1953 cannot in any manner be regarded as unjust, arbitrary and ultra vires the Constitution of India. The power to declare the area in question as protected forest has been rightly exercised by the State Government and the same is well within the framework of law. Hence, no interference is called for and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

(3.) Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that proviso to Section 29(3) of the Act of 1953 is ultra vires and unconstitutional as it is repugnant to the provisions of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The land has not been finally declared as reserve forest. Consequently, mining activities could not have been ordered to be stopped, particularly when the petitioners have invested huge amount and deployed the labour. The notification which has been issued invoking the proviso to Section 29(3) of the Act of 1953 is also illegal and liable to be quashed. It was also submitted that the action of the respondents restraining the mining operations and termination of the leases is violative of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard was afforded.