Divya
Darshana Vs. Goma Ram & Ors. [2009] INSC 1616 (29 September 2009)
Judgment
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C)NO.23716 OF 2004 VERSUS
O R D E R
Heard
learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the 1st
Respondent. Learned counsel for the State is not present when the matter is
heard.
The
petitioner had applied for a mining lease in respect of certain property
comprised in Khasra No.316 and the petitioner was granted the mining lease
nos.53/01 and 54/01 near village Khatukara in District Pali, Rajasthan. Prior
to grant of mining lease it is alleged that the petitioner had obtained
permission from the local panchayat and also from the Mining Department and
this matter was brought to the notice of the concerned District Collector. It
appears that the Collector did not raise any objection to the lease. One of the
persons who had allegedly been doing illegal mining operations, filed a
petition before the High Court alleging that the petitioner herein has been
doing illegal mining activity in a hillock and thereby causing extensive damage
to the water flow in that area and also the environment of the hillocks. The
High Court, by the impugned judgment, ordered that the Director of Mines shall
cancel the license granted to the 2 petitioner. Except the allegations made in
the petition, no detailed reasons are given in the impugned judgment.
When the
matter came up before this Court, by order dated 14th August, 2006, this Court
had directed that the site be inspected by the C.E.C. The C.E.C. has filed a
report on 2.2.2007. Several reasons have been given by the C.E.C. and it opined
that the mining activity in this area is likely to adversely affect the flow of
seasonal streams which help in filling the large village pond (reservoir) and
it may also cause flow of debris from the mines into the pond. The petitioner
herein filed objection to the report filed by the C.E.C. and the petitioner has
also alleged that the flow of water to the streams will not be affected by the
mining activity. As the High Court had not got any opportunity to consider
these facts into consideration, we feel it just and proper that the petitioner
be given an opportunity to place his contentions before the High Court
properly. The High Court is requested to consider the impact on the mining
lease granted to the petitioner and whether it would adversely affect the
environment in that area and appropriate orders may be passed in this regard
after affording opportunity to the parties concerned by the High Court at the
earliest, at least within a period of six months.
Accordingly,
we set aside the order passed by the High Court and 3 direct the High Court to
consider the matter afresh. Till such time, the petitioner shall not carry out
any mining activity in the area in question.
The
Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.
No costs.
..................CJI (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)
...................J. (P. SATHASIVAM)
...................J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)
NEW DELHI;
Back