PREM KATHAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. J.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G.S. Gill, learned Additional Advocate General, Rajasthan with Mr. Akshat Choudhary & Mr. Ashwini Chobisa for the respondents. The instant petition has been laid to register a public interest litigation for cancellation of a mining lease granted in favour of the respondent No. 8 alleging that the same is not only illegal, but the execution thereof as well, has exposed the local inhabitants and the institutions in the proximity thereof to serious risks and hazards, having the potential of causing loss of life and property.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the pleaded case of the petitioners, who claim themselves to be residents of villages Banola, Nadi, Dhandhiya and Jhak Mat Ka Badiya within the territorial limits of Gram Panchayat, Jhak, Tehsil Masuda in the District of Ajmer is that the respondents No. 4 & 5 i.e. Superintendent Mining Engineer, Jaipur Circle, Jaipur Mines and Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Jaipur and Mining Engineer, Mines and Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Ajmer had issued a mining lease bearing M.L. No. 159/08 dated 22.2.2011 in favour of respondent No. 8 for excavating mineral quartz feldspar near Village Balotann Ka Badiya, Gram Panchayat, Jhak. According to the petitioners, the official respondents did not inspect the site before issuing the said lease, as the same (site) was located within the restricted area mentioned in Part -III of the said lease deed. The petitioners averred that in August, 2011, when the mining operation started, the villagers could come to learn of the lease and the issue was discussed in the meeting of the jurisdictional Gram Sabha. The Headmasters of Government Upper Primary School and Sartaj Public Upper Primary School in the locality also wrote letters to the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Jhak that the public way for coming to the schools pass through the mining lease area, and thus, the blasting caused would endanger the life of the students, and that, being apprehensive of such consequence, they have stopped coming to school. The villagers, according to the petitioners, followed up by submitting a representation on 11.9.2011 before the District Collector, Ajmer apprising the said authority of the said developments and contending inter alia that in the related map/site plan, though permanent pillars have been shown to identify the area of mining lease, in fact, such pillars were not available at the site. That adjacent to the mining lease, government upper primary school is situated, and that, public way thereto is adjacent to the mining lease area, thereby exposing the students to grave risk, in view of the mining activities, were underlined. The Sub Divisional Officer, Masuda, to whom this representation was forwarded, sought for a report from the Patwari Halka, who inspected the site and submitted the same. The report disclosed inter alia that neither the site pillars nor any board indicating subsistence of any mining lease was visible at the location, which was adjacent to public kachcha way, burial ground of Village Nadi and Kalawaton and Samota Ka Talab. It was mentioned further that the abadi area was situated at a distance of 500 metres therefrom, and that, the agricultural fields and 6/7 wells of the villagers were also adjacent thereto. The report further disclosed that the Temple of Bheru Ji was also located nearby, and that, at about 100 metres therefrom (mining lease area), there was a cremation ground. Referring to Part -III of the lease deed, the petitioners have also averred that the mining site is situated within the restricted area, and thus, the lease, on that count, is invalid in law. They further asserted that before issuing the mining lease, the official respondents also did not take any "No -objection Certificate" either from the revenue authorities or from the gram panchayat, and that, they approved the mining plan without inspecting the site. As inspite of several representations for remedial interventions, no meaningful or effecting steps have been taken, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking judicial intervention.

(3.) THE respondent No. 8, the lessee, in his reply, has insisted that the mining lease is valid in law, and that, the operation thereof is not causing any injury to anybody. He alleged that the instant petition is not to espouse any public cause, and instead, the petitioners, for personal gain, have indulged in this venture to reap undue benefit. He even alleged that the petitioners had been demanding money from him, and that, he, having refused to oblige them, they have elected for this course of action to harass and intimidate him. The answering respondent also has alleged that the petitioners are in the habit of extending threats to persons who carry out mining operations in the area, and also mentioned about a report on one of their complaints submitted by the jurisdictional Sub Divisional Magistrate that no illegal mining operation was being pursued. According to him, the mining lease had been made in compliance of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and asserted that the joint demarcation report, that was prepared in connection therewith, would demonstrate that the area involved was far away from any of the prohibited areas, as contemplated in law. He averred further that before the execution of the mining lease, inspection of the area had been made by the concerned mining engineer and the boundary pillars, to ascertain the same, had been fixed at the prescribed places. He asserted further that all documents, as required under the Rules, were submitted with his application, and that, having regard to the nature of the land i.e. government siwaichak land, there was no need to obtain "No -objection Certificate" from the gram panchayat or the government authorities. He denied that the Temple of Bheru Ji was situated in the mining lease area, or that, the public road, burial ground or taalab was located within the prohibited distance. That he was not carrying out any mining operation within 50 metres of any public road or water reservoir, has been averred. He denied as well that no inspection of the area was made before the mining lease was sanctioned in his favour. The answering respondent stated as well that the schools referred to in the petition were also located at a distant place from the area of operation, and that, the road to the schools was not connected with the one, to the mining area. Referring to a site report dated 1.10.2011 prepared by the Tehsildar, Masuda, the respondent has pleaded as well that the mining operations were confined within the lease area, and not beyond.