High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 130/2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 7 of the writ petit
Legal Reasoning
14. We are of the view that all State Governments / Union Territories have t o give due weight to the above mentioned recommendations of the MoEF which are m ade in consultation with all the State Governments and Union Territories. Model Rules of 2010 issued by the Ministry of Mines are very vital from the environmen tal, ecological and bio-diversity point of view and therefore the State Governme nts have to frame proper rules in accordance with the recommendations, under Sec tion 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 15. Quarrying of river sand, it is true, is an important economic activity in th e country with river sand forming a crucial raw material for the infrastructural development and for the construction industry but excessive in-stream sand and gravel mining causes the degradation of rivers. Instream mining lowers the strea m bottom of rivers which may lead to bank erosion. Depletion of sand in the stre ambed and along coastal areas causes the deepening of rivers which may result in destruction of aquatic and riparian habitats as well. Extraction of alluvial ma terial as already mentioned from within or near a streambed has a direct impact on the stream’s physical habitat characteristics. 17. The State of Haryana and various other States have not so far implemente d the above recommendations of the MoEF or the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Mines before issuing auction notices granting short term permits by way of a uction of minor mineral boulders, gravel, sand etc., in the river beds and elsew here of less than 5 hectares. We, therefore, direct to all the States, Union Ter ritories, MoEF and the Ministry of Mines to give effect to the recommendations m ade by MoEF in its report of March 2010 and the model guidelines framed by the M inistry of Mines, within a period of six months from today and submit their comp liance reports. It is the case of the petitioner that for carrying out effective construction wo rk entrusted to it, it requires to obtain sand gravels, which is a vital constru ction material, without which no road can be constructed and that too a Highway. On perusal of the aforesaid order of the Apex Court, no ban on carrying the sai d materials from the leasehold site to the work site is discernible. The petitioner is not a lease holder but is required to carry materials from the leasehold site to the work site, for which he requires the forest permit.
Arguments
Heard Mr. S. Chetia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Bhaga wati, learned State Counsel. The petitioner, who is a registered contractor under PWD, Assam, NH Division and presently undertaking construction of 2 Lane NH 37 with paved shoulder from the end of ROB at Makum to NH-52 near Rupai (L= 23.482 Km) under SARDP-NE Ph-A in t he State of Assam (jor No. SARDP-NE/NH-37/AS/PWD/2010-11-165), is aggrieved by n on-issuance of Forest Permit to facilitate plying of trucks to carry sand gravel s and boulders from the lease holders to the work site. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit in which referring to the Ape x Court order dated 27.2.2012 passed in IA No. 12-13/2011 in SLPC No. 19628-1962 9/2009, it has been stated thus :- (cid:28)9. ion, the deponent begs to state that the petitioner’s agent approached the offic e of the Respondent No.3 to issue the permit against the indent of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Dibrugarh Road Division, but as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Ind ia in its order dated 27.2.2012 in IA No. 12-13/2011 in SLPC No. 19628-19629 of 2009) had directed to give affect to the recommendations of MoEF in its report o f March, 2010 and to frame model guidelines (for giving mining lease) by the Min istry of Mines within a period of six months which expired on 27.8.2012 which re ads as (cid:28)WE, THEREFORE DIRECT ALL THE STATES, UNION TERITORIES, MoEF, AND MINISTR Y OF MINES TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MoEF IN ITS REPORT OF MA RCH, 2010, MODEL GUIDELINES FRAMED BY THE MINISTRY OF MINES WITHIN A PERIOD OF S IX MONTHS FROM TODAY I.E. from 27.2.20121 (cid:29). The office of the respondent unable to issue such permit without the guideline of the ministry of mines. The Respond ent No.3 had also informed the Executive Engineer, PWD, NH Division, Diubrugarh and ten other heads of different departments about the order of the Hon’ble Supr eme Court dated 27.2.2012 vide letter No. B/M-6/MMC/6832-45 dated 15.9.2012. The allegation raised by the petitioner is baseless and not based on facts (cid:29). Mr. Chetia, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the aforesaid Apex C ourt order submits that when there is no bar as such for the lease holders in op erating their mahals, subject however, to the fulfillment of certain conditions, there cannot be bar for transportation of the aforesaid materials by the petiti oner to its work site. In this connection, Mr. Chetia, learned counsel for the p etitioner has referred to paragraphs 12, 14, 15, 17 and 19 of the Apex Court ord er, which are quoted below :- (cid:28)12. The Minister for (E & F) wrote DO letter dated 1st June, 2010 to all the Ch ief Ministers of the States to examine the report and to issue necessary instruc tions for incorporating the recommendations made in the report in the Mineral Co ncession Rules for mining of minor minerals under Section 15 of Mines and Minera l (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Following are the key recommendations re-iterated in the letter: (cid:28)(1) Minimum size of mine lease should be 5 ha. (2) Minimum period of mine lease should be 5 years. (3) A cluster approach to mines should be taken in case of smaller mines leases operating currently. (4) Mine plans should be made mandatory for minor minerals as well. (5) A separate corpus should be created for reclamation and rehabilitation of mi ned out areas. (6) Hydro-geological reports should be prepared for mining proposed below ground water table. (7) For river bed mining, leases should be granted stretch wise, depth may be re stricted to 3m/water level, whichever is less, and safety zones should be worked out. (8) The present classification of minerals into major and minor categories shoul d be re-examined by the Ministry of Mines in consultation with the States. (cid:29)
Decision
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to give a fresh look to the matter in reference to the aforesaid order of the A pex Court and appreciating the defects expressed by the petitioner. Let the entire exercise in terms of this order by passing a speaking order shall be passed, not later than 1st week of April, 2013 With the above direction and observation, the writ petition stands disposed of, without however, any order as to costs.