IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN 
AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

:: ORDER ::

D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.11433/2011
Villagers of Village Tigavan, Panchayat Samiti, Kotkasim, Distt.Alwar
Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Date of Order   :          12th September, 2013

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

Ms.Archana Mantri for the petitioners.
Mr.Kamlakar Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by
Ms.Alankrita Sharma for respondents No.6 to 20.
Mr.S.N.Kumawat, Addl.Advocate General for the State.
Mr.Akhil Simlote for respondent-Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board.
*****
BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) :	

The present proceedings registered as a public interest litigation carries a prayer for judicial intervention to set at naught the mining leases granted to the private respondents by the concerned statutory authorities and also to ensure against conduct of any illegal mining activity in the area involved.

We have heard Ms.Archana Mantri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Kamlakar Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.Alankrita Sharma for the respondents No.6 to 20, Mr.S.N.Kumawat, learned Additional Advocate General for the State-respondents and Mr.Akhil Simlote, learned counsel for the respondent-Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board.

The residents of Village Tigavan, Panchayat Samiti, Kotkasim, District Alwar are before this Court contending that their residential houses are adjacent to a Hill having a height of about 700 feet securing the ecosystem of the area. The concerned State authorities have illegally allotted mining leases to the private respondents to excavate Cheja Patthar during the years 2002-2003 & 2009-2010 being totally unmindful of the detrimental effect of the mining activities, that would follow. According to them, with the commencement of such activities, they have been facing great inconvenience and exposed to serious environmental hazards. Contending that the lease-holders are using blasting methods for excavating the aforenamed mineral, they have stated that their representations, ventilating their grievances, have remained unheeded. They have referred, amongst others, to a complaint submitted by the Headmaster of the Government Upper Primary School, Khohara (Kotkasim) located adjacent to the lease area complaining against such illegal mining activities and the prejudicial consequences thereof to the Sub Divisional Officer, Kotkasim dated 27.7.2011. That similar complaints had also been filed by other Heads of institution of similarly situated nearby schools has been stated as well. The petitioners have averred also that the Sub Divisional Officer, Kotkasim, District Alwar, prior thereto, had prepared a report to the effect that there was no danger to the residents of the village, if the mining operations are conducted, and that, the District Collector, Alwar acting thereon passed the order dated 31.3.2009 granting leases to the private respondents. That these leases have been granted to the residents of the State of Haryana, has been mentioned as well. The State-respondents, in their reply, while admitting that the mining leases had been granted to the respondents No.5 to 20 on different dates, have maintained that those had been accorded after completion of necessary formalities and on issuance of No-objection Certificate by the District Collector, Alwar. That on 11/16.11.2002, No-objection Certificate had also been issued by the Gram Panchayat, Tigavan vis-a-vis the lessees Smt.Akhtari Begam and Smt.Anju Sewak, has been mentioned. According to the State-respondents, the Gair Mumkin Pahad in khasra No.536 located in Village Khohra Thakaran, Madha Ka Majra, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar on which 13 mining leases had been granted to the other private respondents, is a non-forest area as per the notification of the Government of India dated 7.5.1992, and that, prior to the sanction of such leases, the environmental clearance dated 31.7.2008 and No-objection Certificate from the District Collector, Alwar dated 31.3.2009 had been obtained. These respondents have stated that the area of mining lease is 245 metres from the village, and that, the mining is to be done manually. That blasting is prohibited and cannot be resorted to without permission being obtained from the concerned authorities, has been underlined. The answering respondents have thus denied the allegation of illegal mining or blasting, as alleged. They have averred further that the mining area is more than 45 metres away from the residential area, and that, there had been no adverse reports vis-a-vis the mining operations. They have clarified as well that the height of the Hill, referred to in the writ petition, is only 64 metres. According to them, no such complaint from the headmaster of the schools, as claimed by the petitioners, had been received. The respondents have assured that if any such complaint is laid before the concerned authorities, the same would be duly acted upon in accordance with law.

The respondents No.6 to 20, while generally reiterating the pleaded stand of the State authorities, have categorically denied the allegation of illegal mining in the area concerned. They have alleged that the Sarpanch, Smt.Bhagwati Devi had tried to construct a temple in the mining area on the disputed hill, for which a complaint was made to the jurisdictional District Collector, following which the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kotakasim issued an order to desist from such activities as it was not permissible to construct any temple or religious structure, in terms of the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court to that effect. That non-compliance of the direction, may result in action under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 against her, was mentioned. The answering respondents have stated that thereafter the District Collector, Alwar also issued an order to the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 25.5.2010 to ensure that no such construction of the temple, as proposed, takes place. The respondents have thus averred that the instant petition is a sequel to their complaints. They have referred as well to the report dated 18.5.2010 of the Tehsildar submitted to the Sub Divisional Officer, Kotkasim to the effect that the leases had been validly granted, and that, there was no blasting work in progress. The report also mentioned that the abadi was situated on the other side of the Hill, opposite to the area where the mining was underway. According to the respondents, the report also disclosed that there was no crack in the houses situated closest to the mining area, and that, no report of any accident had been received. The respondents also reiterated that the height of the hill was 68 metres, and that, the mining activities, as undertaken, are not detrimental to the ecosystem. They have elaborated that the State Government before granting the leases to them had ensured compliance of all legal formalities, and that, the State Expert Committee constituted for the grant of environmental clearance under the Environment (Protection Act), 1986 did scrupulously examine all essential facts, as recited in the fact sheets laid before it. According to them, it was after such an indepth verification of all essential aspects that the environmental clearance was granted. Necessary consent to operate the mining leases was also issued by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Board') on different dates. They have stated that the mining activities conducted by them are strictly in accordance with law and in compliance of the conditions prescribed therefor. That the Government Upper Primary School, Khohra, Kotakasim is situated at a distance of more than 500 metres of the nearest lease site, and that, the other schools are located 1-1.5 kms. therefrom, has been stated as well. The respondents have stated further that the complaints made are all motivated and have been filed on the very same date i.e.28.7.2011 or thereafter, subsequent to the information lodged, that the villagers being led by the Sarpanch, were trying to construct a temple on the Hill, through prohibited by law. That these complaints have been found to be false on an enquiry by the concerned authority, has been stated as well. The Board while providing the details of the consent granted to the private respondents, under the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereafter referred to as 'the Air Act'), for carrying out the mining activities, have averred that on receiving the notice of demand for justice addressed by the petitioners, inspection of the mining activities situated in the area involved was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Air Act and necessary action was taken thereafter.

Whereas the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued in reiteration of their pleaded stand that the complaints laid before the authorities from time to time amply demonstrate that the mining leases had been granted in contravention of all relevant laws, and that, the activities thereunder are being conducted to the serious detriment of the life and property of the inhabitants of Village Tigavan, Panchayat Samiti, Kotkasim, District Alwar as well as the environment, warranting remedial intervention of this Court, the learned counsel for the State-respondents as well as the Board have asserted to the contrary.

Mr.Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.6 to 20, apart from reaffirming that the mining leases had been granted after complying with all legal imperatives and on issuance of the environmental clearance and the consent by the Board, as required, urged that the instant petition is a frivolous one stemming from ulterior considerations and ought to be rejected. Drawing the attention of this Court, in particular, to the minutes of the State Expert Committee as well as the fact sheets laid before it and the reasons recorded for grant of environmental clearance for the mining leases eventually accorded to these respondents, the learned senior counsel also referred to the report submitted by Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.S.Chaudhari (Retd.), who had been requested by this Court to visit the site, conduct a survey thereof in the context of the pleaded assertions of the authorities and submit a report. According to the learned senior counsel, not only the Gair Mumkin Pahad of Aravali Hills is not of the height, as alleged by the petitioners, he contended on the basis of the report of Hon'ble Chaudhari,J. and other materials on record that the abadi being located more than 45 metres away, as contemplated in Rule 18(26) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1986'), the imputation of illegal grant of mining lease and mining activities by the respondents, is not only unfounded, but also mala fide. Referring to the relevant provisions of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 (for short, hereafter referred as 'the Regulations'), the learned senior counsel has insisted that in any case, in mining activities the use of explosives has to be in accordance therewith. Mr.Sharma did submit that as on date, no blasting is being resorted to and assured that in case it is required in future, as is obligatory, necessary permission from the Director General, Mines Safety would be obtained.

We have traversed the rival pleadings and have also extended our due consideration to the rival arguments made.

There is no demur that in terms of the order of this Court, Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.S.Chaudhari had been entrusted with the task of inspecting the site and to submit a report on the basis of his findings in course thereof. The report submitted and laid before us in course of the arguments is a detailed one, which inter alia discloses that not only in preparing the same, pleadings of the parties were taken note of, the findings are based on spot verifications conducted in presence of the villagers as well as the government officials. The relevant documents/records supplied by the Mining Department of the State were also referred to. The finding recorded is that the mining lease area does not fall in the forest land and the land of 13 mining leases is Gair Mumkin Pahad, and that, necessary no-objection certificates had been issued by the relevant authorities. That the pasture land included in two mining leases had been substituted by other land, has also been recorded. The report further discloses that as per the Topo sheet, height of the hill is 64 metres instead of 700 feet, as alleged by the petitioners. It has been mentioned as well that having regard to the mineral, that is excavated, there is no possibility of heavy blasting, and that, as reported by the lease holders, the exercise is being conducted by open cast mining and no explosive is used. The statement of the villagers, including one Sadhuram, the husband of the Sarpanch that there was no blasting in the mining lease area for last 7-8 months, has been recorded. That no complaint with regard to blast during February, 2005 to January, 2010 has been received, also finds a mention therein. The report further discloses that no crack had been found in the houses situated within a distance of 200 metres from mining lease area. That the mining lease area was 960 metres away from abadi and 1250 metres from Madha Ka Majara School, is recorded. That on inspection of the schools in the locality, it was reported that since last 18 months, there had been no blasting, and that, no crack had appeared in the school, has been observed as well. The Hon'ble Judge recorded that there was however risk of accident due to transportation as the school was on the road side.

Though in course of the arguments, the correctness of these findings have been endeavoured to be disputed, on a cumulative consideration of the documents on record as a whole, we are left unpersuaded thereby. The documents/records appended to the pleadings of the respondents do indicate that the necessary legal formalities have been complied with before issuance of mining leases to the private respondents. The proceedings of the State Expert Committee and the fact sheets in connection therewith, also attest the exhaustiveness of the scrutiny. Rule 18(26) of the Rules of 1986 prohibits working of a mining lease within 45 metres, amongst others, from any reservoir, canal or other public works or buildings inhabited, except with the previous permission of the jurisdictional Collector or any other officer authorized. Having regard to the factual disclosures vis-a-vis the mutual locations of the mining sites and the abadi of the locality concerned, this legal provision has no application whatsoever. The provisions of the Regulation, more particularly, those under Chapter-XV dealing with Explosives and Shot-Firing, do provide a detailed procedure outlining the extent and manner of use of explosives. The pleadings of the State-respondents and the Board authenticate that before issuing the mining leases to the private respondents, due care and caution had been taken and the procedure therefor had been meticulously followed. That the authorities are responding to the exigencies of the situation time and again, and that, the mining sites are under their vigilant surveillance, is also established by their pleadings. To reiterate, there is no reason whatsoever to dispute the correctness of the findings recorded in the report of Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.S.Chaudhari.

On a cumulative consideration of all above, we are thus of the unhesitant opinion that no intervention of this Court, as sought for, is warranted. The petition therefore, is closed. This notwithstanding, it would be the solemn legal obligation of the State-respondents and the Board to take all necessary measures and initiatives to ensure that the mining operations are conducted strictly in accordance with the relevant laws, and that, the required stringent action is taken against the violators. The stay application also stands disposed of.

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J.	                       (AMITAVA ROY),C.J.


			Skant/-
			All the corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

							Shashi Kant Gaur, P