Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 569 (PAT)

Vinay Verma v. State Of Bihar

1995-10-16

AFTAB ALAM

body1995
Judgment 1. The petitioner in this application makes a limited prayer and seeks a direction to the respondents who are the officials in the state Government to forward his application alongwith their comments and remarks, if any, to the Central Government for its approval in terms of Sec.2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with rule 4 of the Forest (Conservation) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). 2. In 1978 the petitioner obtained a lease from the State Government granting him permission for mining by picking by hand the pebbles and shingles etc. from the river bed of Pandai river flowing through the forest area. In 1980 the Act came into force making it obligatory upon the State Government and the petitioner to obtain the approval of the Central Government in terms of section 2 of the Act. The petitioner accordingly made an application for permission sometime in the year 1988. His application was duly forwarded by the State government to the Central Government, the comptent authority, for the grant of approval under the Act. The Central Government conveyed its approval under section 2 of the Act for five years by letter dated 13/21.6.1989 (Copy at Annexure-1 ). It was later clarified by letter dated 22.7.1993 that the approval accorded for lease of 20.40 hectares forest land in favour of the petitioner was for five years and was valid upto 20.6.1994. 3. It appears that while the five years period of the Central Governments approval was still subsisting the petitioners earlier lease came to an end and a fresh lease for a period of ten years was executed in his favour by the State Government on 1.8.1990 (Copy at Annexure-2 ). This lease would come to an end on 31.7.2000. Thus the position is that though the petitioner has a subsisting lease up to 31.7.2000 the statutory approval granted by the Central Government came to an end on 20.6.1994. As a result, the petitioner is not in a position to exercise his rights under the lease for want of the necessary approval by the Central Government in terms of section 2 of the Act. 4. As a result, the petitioner is not in a position to exercise his rights under the lease for want of the necessary approval by the Central Government in terms of section 2 of the Act. 4. According to the petitioner on 12.6.1994 he again applied for renewal of the permission for 12 hectares out of 20.40 hectares to execute further the mining work by way of hand picking on the leased land in the river bed as per the Rules provided alongwith the relevant documents. 5. In this application he makes a grievance that the respondents have not forwarded his application to the Central government who was the only competent authority to take a decision regarding the grant of approval in terms of Sec.2 of the Act. 6. The respondents have appeared and filed a counter affidavit in this case. It is admitted they have not forwarded the petitioners application to the Central government. It is alleged that the petitioner was guilty of violating the provisions of the (Indian) Forest Act, the Wild Life (Protection) Act, the Forest (Conservation) Act and a number of terms and conditions for the lease. It was also asserted that under these circumstances it was open to the respondents, not to forward the petitioners application for approval to the Central government. In other words, they could reject the petitioners application for approval at their own level. 7. Having heard Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi on behalf of the petitioner, and the Government advocate on behalf of the respondents and having perused the writ petition and the counter affidavit, I am of the opinion that the stand taken by the respondents is quite untenable in the facts and circumstances of this case. It has been held in a number of decisions that the competent authority to take a decision under section 2 of the Act is the Central Government and the petitioner has a right that his application for approval should be considered by the Central Government. Rule 4 of the Rules enjoins upon the respondents to forward the application to the Central government and they must do so. It will be open for them to enclose their comments, remarks and recommendations in this regard which will be duly considered by the central Government while considering the petitioners application for grant of approval. 8. Rule 4 of the Rules enjoins upon the respondents to forward the application to the Central government and they must do so. It will be open for them to enclose their comments, remarks and recommendations in this regard which will be duly considered by the central Government while considering the petitioners application for grant of approval. 8. In the result, the application is allowed with a direction that the respondent must forward the petitioners application for. approval to the Central Government within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before Respondent no.2.