Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 1 docs
THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Anand Mining Corporation vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2013
                             W.P.NO.679/2013

18-03-2013

       Shri Shreyas Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
       Shri Prashant Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for
the State.
       Seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner

to lift overburden lying in the mining area and seeking identical relief as has been granted by a Division Bench of this court in W.P.No.18922/2011 and W.P.No.1574/2008, this writ petition has been filed.

The petitioner was granted a mining licence for carrying out mining operations over Khasra Nos.742, 628/1, situated in village Tikariya and Dubiyara in district Jabalpur.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has conducted certain mining activities and overburden removal has been done, but the petitioner has been restrained from carrying on any further mining activities on the ground of non compliance of the provisions of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981. However, seeking permission to remove the overburden lying at mining area, a application was submitted to the competent authority and when the same was not considered this writ petition is filed.

Shri Shreyas Dharmadhikari,learned counsel for the petitioner invites our attention to the orders Annexure P-6 and P-7 passed by this court under similar circumstances, wherein permission was granted for removal of overburden from the spot on payment of royalty and complying with the other statutory requirement.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, Shri Prashant Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, admits that under similar circumstances 2 in the cases as referred to hereinabove, permission has been granted for removal of overburden from the spot.

Taking note of the totality of the circumstances and the orders already passed by a Division Bench of this court under similar circumstances, we direct the respondents tol allow the petitioner to remove the overburden already available in the area subject to payment of royalty and clearance of all other dues and on compliance with the statutory provisions as per requirement under law. As this is only relief claimed in this writ petition, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.

C.C. as per rules.

      (S.A.Bobde)                        (Rajendra Menon)
      Chief Justice                         Judge



hsp