Bodan Lal Saini and Two Others v. Union of India — 1996 DIGILAW 124 (RAJ)

Honble SINGHAL, J. – All the above three writ petitions are disposed of by this common order as all of them have been filed against the action of the respondents in not releasing the mining lease. (2). For the proper appreciation of facts involved, the facts of the case of Bodan Lal Saini, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3915/94 are being taken in to conside- ration. (3). The mining lease was granted in the year 1984 being M.L. No. 97/84 measuring 150 x 60 meters of stone situated at village Gha Ajgaria Pahadi, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar. Before lapse of 10 years, the application for renewal was submitted on 25th January, 1994 as the period of lease was to expire on 30th July, 1994. The petitioner was required by letter dated 9th March, 1994 to submit the copy of Khasra Girdawari/khasra map duly certified from area Patwari and no dues certificate besides NOC from Union of India in terms of the notification dated 7th May, 1992. The petitioner moved to the Union of India for grant of NOC on 18th August, 1993 and it is stated that till date no orders have been passed on the said application. It is seriously disputed that the area falls within Forest area or the notification dated 7th May, 1992 is applicable to it. Attention has also been drawn to the letter of the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India dated 8th June, 1994 wherein, it was stated that no site clearance from the Ministry is necessary as the conditions of notification are applicable to major minerals with leases above 5 hectares. In terms of the notification, an Environmental Impact Assessment and Development Project dated 27.1.1994 and the notification issued on 4.5.1994 (sic). It is also stated that the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Banashiram Modi and Other (1), has taken into consideration the provisions of Forest Conservation) Act, 1980 as well as the guidelines for diversion of Forest Act and observed that the approval of Central Government in Forest area already broken up or cleared before commencement of Act, prior approval of Central Government for carrying on mining operation in such area is not necessary. (4). Mr. (4). Mr. K.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the Mining Department has pointed out that according to the documents which have been submitted by the petitioner, it is evident that the area is a forest area in the land revenue record of the State Government and it has been shown as Gair Mumkin Pahad. It is also stated that under the Environment Protection Act, 1985, the notification which has been issued by the Central Government on 7th May, 1992 is not only the grant of lease but even the renewal thereof is not permitted if the area falls within the purview of the notification. It is also stated that the letter dated 5th June, 1993 was received from the area Director, Tiger Project in which the land has been shown as falling within the Siriska Range, Tal Vraksha and the Area Forest Officer Tal Vraksha has also informed vide letter dated 15th May, 1994 that the said area falls in the tiger project. Reliance has also been placed on the decisions of Apex Court reported in JT 1993 (1) SC 1 (2). (5). I have considered over the matter. In the notification dated 7.5.1992 issued under Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act to reserve forest, protected forest or any other area shown as forest in the land records maintained by the State Government as on the date of notification in relation to Gurgaon district of the Sate of Haryana and Alwar district of the State of Rajasthan have been considered as area in the category of prohibition for carrying on of operations except with prior permission. Similarly, excepting mining lease in sanctuaries, National Park and area covered under Project Tiger have also been prohibited for carrying on progress and operations of mining without prior permission. In the said notification Gair Mumkin Pahad and all areas of Siriska National Park and Sanctuary notified under the Willdlife Protection Act, 1972 have separately been shown in the table where the carrying on process and operations without permission is pro- hibited. From the language of the notification if it is seen as to whether the State of Government could have renewed the mining lease or should have refused it in terms of the directions given by the Apex Court in the decision referred to above as reported in JT 1993(3) SC 1 (supra). From the language of the notification if it is seen as to whether the State of Government could have renewed the mining lease or should have refused it in terms of the directions given by the Apex Court in the decision referred to above as reported in JT 1993(3) SC 1 (supra). It is seen that the area of the petitioner falls in (1) Gair Mumkin Pahad; (2) Forest shown in the land record maintained by the State Government and (3) Project Tiger. If this is the factual position then the renewal of the mining lease already granted could not have been granted without No Objection Certificate of the Central Government. (6). It may also be observed that this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Veer Bala, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 126/93 decided on 16.12.1993 after taking into consideration the two decisions of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1987 SC 1073 (3) and AIR 1988 SC 2187 (4), has considered the contention of the respondents with reference to the decision given by the Apex Court in AIR 1985 SC 814 (supra) referred to above and it was considered that the said decision was based on its own facts where another mineral was included and the area was al- ready broken up. In view of the later decisions of the Apex Court it was considered that the inclusion of fresh grant of minor mineral cannot be given. The area which has been shown as falling within the prohibited area, the State Government was justified in asking the petitioner to obtain No Objection Certificate. No Objection Certificate has not been submitted till date and it is stated that the petitioner has already applied for such certificate in the year 1993 and there is no response of the Union of India. In the present petitions, no prayer is made for giving direction to the Union of India for passing the order. It is expected that whenever an application is submitted by any person for issue of No Objection Certificate, the Union of India should take decision thereon instead of keeping the things pending. In the present petitions, no prayer is made for giving direction to the Union of India for passing the order. It is expected that whenever an application is submitted by any person for issue of No Objection Certificate, the Union of India should take decision thereon instead of keeping the things pending. If the area falls within the prohibited area and it is considered that the mining activities could be allowed then the permission be given, but if it is considered that such activities cannot be carried on and because of Environment Protection or Protection in the Conservation of Forest or Tiger Project etc. the applicant should have been informed that No Objection Certificate cannot be permitted. (7). With the above observations, all the three writ petitions are dismissed.