WP 6135/2011


                                                                        1



                 W.P. No. 6135/2011 (PIL)
          (Neelesh Dubey v. Government of India and others)

21.01.2015

      None for the petitioner.
      Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate for
the respondents 2,3,5 & 7/State.

Shri Rakesh Jain and Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate for the respondent No.4.

Heard counsel for the parties.

The relief claimed in this petition filed as Public Interest Litigation is to direct the respondents 1, 5 and 7 to restrain respondent No.6 to continue with the illegal mining activity in forest land. Further relief claimed by the petitioner is to inquire into the matter as to grant of illegal mining permission in forest land and to take stern action against the concerned officials of the Revenue Department and Forest Department, as the case may be, for their acts of commission and omission.

It is noticed that the Under Secretary of the Mining Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 10.07.2007 granted prospecting licence in favour of respondent No.6. On the basis of the said prospecting licence respondent No.6 approached the District Forest Officer to grant permission to undertake prospecting on the subject land. Even the said Authority acceded to the request of WP 6135/2011 2 respondent No.6.

According to the petitioner, however, neither the decision to grant prospecting licence to respondent No.6 in respect of forest land nor the permission granted by District Forest Officer can be countenanced and are, in fact, issued without authority of law. The District Forest Officer has committed manifest error in granting permission also because no approval of the Pollution Control Board Department in respect of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 has been obtained by the licencee. The petitioner, additionally, has relied on the decisions of the Apex Court, to buttress the relief claimed in the writ petition, in the case of Glanrock Estate (P) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu1 and T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and others2. According to the petitioner, in the light of the observations in these decisions, neither the Mining Department, which has granted prospecting licence to respondent No.6 in respect of forest land nor the District Forest Officer should have granted permission to carry on the intended activity, which inevitably result in contravention of forest laws as well as pollution control laws.

Considering the nature of grievance made by the 1 2010 AIR SCW 6045 2 AIR 2005 SC 4256 WP 6135/2011 3 petitioner, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Mining Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh and the Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh to reconsider the license/permission granted to respondent No.6 in respect of forest land in the light of the plea taken by the petitioner in the present petition and, in particular, with reference to the dictum of the Apex Court in the two decisions referred to above. If the said Authority is of the opinion that the said licence/permission has been wrongly granted or cannot be allowed to continue further in terms of the decisions of the Apex Court, must initiate appropriate action in that behalf and take final decision expeditiously after following due process and giving opportunity to all concerned. The final decision should be on its own merits and in accordance with law.

The Principal Secretary of the respective Department shall submit compliance report on or before 31st March, 2015.

Matter be listed under caption "Direction" on 6th April, 2015 for considering compliance report.

Subject to above, petition be treated as disposed of.

             (A. M. Khanwilkar)                  (C.V. Sirpurkar)
                 Chief Justice                       Judge
S/