Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 475 (PAT)

Ramesh Prasad Verma v. Union Of India

2002-04-11

R.S.GARG

body2002
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This order shall dispose of C.W.J.C. No. 15828/2001 and C.W.J.C. No. 478/ 2002. 3. In C.W.J.C. No. 15828/2001 order, Annexure-10 has been impugned, while in C.W.J.C. No. 478/2002 Annexure-5 has been impugned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in a long drawn litigation, lease was granted in favour of each of the petitioners with a permission in their favour to collect boulders, rubbles, small piece of pebbles etc. from the river bed. Accordingly to them the collection of these items though strictly does not fall within the meaning of mining but as the technical definition says it to be a mining, the petitioners were entitled to an order in their favour for mining. According to them in the year 1994 after the approval of the Central Government the lease were granted in favour of the petitioners. It is further contended by them that the monitoring team of the Centra! Government made certain inspection and submitted its report. In the said report certain observations were made against the interest of the petitioners but in any case the report was in favour of each of the petitioners. They further say that the State Government not satisfied with the said report, challenged the correctness and validity of the said report and made certain recommendation to the Central Government for recall of its sanction granted under section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act. They further submit that the Central Government without hearing the petitioners or without taking into consideration its earlier reports and the sanctions, recalled its earliers order and annulled the sanction earlier granted and directed the State Government to cancel the lease. The petitioners submit that apart from the facts relating to malafides etc. which are floating on the surface of the records, it would be clear that principles of natural justice have been violated through and through and the petitioners, who had been granted mining lease in their favour till 2004, have been unceremoniously removed from the area and as the order passed by the Central Government was to have civil consequences, it was all the more for the Central Government to hear the petitioner before passing an order against their interest. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the Central Government so also for the State Government submitted that the monitoring/inspection team had made the inspections in presence of the State authorities and the representatives of the petitioners. In the said report number of violations were found showing that the petitioners labour was causing great harm to the fauna and flora. They were causing damage to the reserve wild life sanctuary as the petitioners were not providing the fuels to them, they were cutting branches of the trees for using the same as fuel wood. In stead of fixing the wirenets on the banks of the river, they were digging the river bed and were collecting the rubbles, boulders, pebbles, etc. from beyond the banks of the river. They were even otherwise affecting the habitat of the wild animals. They submit that as the inspection was made in the presence of the representatives of the petitioners and a copy of report was supplied to them, the petitioners of their own were required to challenge the report and submit.their case either before the State Government or the Central Government, clearly stating that the lease can not be cancelled or the permission earlier accorded under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act could not be recalled or annulled. It is further submitted by them that in view of the large scale illegalities and the violation of the lease conditions, the petitioners lease was rightly cancelled. The counsel for the Central Government submits that in view of the recommendations/objections made by the State Government, the Central Government was absolutely justified irr recalling its earlier sanction. It is, however, not disputed by the learned counsel for the Central Government that after receiving the recommendations/objections from the State Government, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners of each of the writ applications and on strength of the report of the monitoring team and the objection submitted by the State Government, the earlier sanction was recalled and as a consequence of this the iease was cancelled. 6. In the opinion of this Court the writ petitions deserve to be allowed as the writ petitions project the case of flargrant violations of the principles of natural justice. There is no dispute before me that the lease were granted in the year 1994 and were to remain effective upto 2004. 6. In the opinion of this Court the writ petitions deserve to be allowed as the writ petitions project the case of flargrant violations of the principles of natural justice. There is no dispute before me that the lease were granted in the year 1994 and were to remain effective upto 2004. It is also not in dispute before me that during the currency/subsistence of the lease, the order adverse to the interest of the petitioners have been passed by the Central Government so also by the State Government. It is also not in dispute before me that the monitoring committee has submitted its report and a copy of the same was supplied to the State Government so also to the petitioners but none of the authorities called for the comments of the petitioners nor any opportunity was given to them to make their submissions against the said recommendation/ observations noticed or the finding recorded by the monitoring committee. From the records, it appears that after the monitoring committee has submitted its report and brought to the notice of the State Government that particular violations were being made by the petitioners, the State Government critically examined the report and submitted that the report was contrary to the real facts, the report was in fact showing the violations of the lease conditions and was also projecting that the habitat of the wild life was adversely affected. The report though were served upon the petitioners, but the objections submitted by the State Government were not sent through the Central Government to the petitioners for their comments or for projecting or submitting their case before the Central Government. In fact on an earlier occasion the Central Government had issued an order under section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act and later on an order under section 29 though not in writing but as I assume that there was so, was issued and each of the petitioners was allowed certain mining operation in the sanctuary area. In accordance with section 29 of the Wild Life Protection Act, the mining operations can be carried in a sanctuary and such a lease is granted in favour of the petitioner/petitioners then before cancellation of the lease or before revoking or recalling the sanction, the petitioners were required to be heard in the matter. 7. In accordance with section 29 of the Wild Life Protection Act, the mining operations can be carried in a sanctuary and such a lease is granted in favour of the petitioner/petitioners then before cancellation of the lease or before revoking or recalling the sanction, the petitioners were required to be heard in the matter. 7. As the petitioners were granted no opportunity of hearing and an unilateral action has been taken against their interest by the Central Government in recalling the permission, the order passed by the Central Government as contained in Annexure-10/ Annexure-5 cannot be allowed to stand, the orders passed by the Central Government and the consequent orders passed by the State Government cancelling the lease are hereby quashed. The Central Government is given liberty to take up the matter again, issue showcause notice to the petitioners, requiring each of the petitioners to submit his case in elation to revocation/annulment of the sanction, granted under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act. The petitioners after receiving the notice, within the time fixed by the Central Government shall submit their replies. After the replies are received proper opportunity of hearing would be given to each of the petitioners and only then the Central Government shall pass final orders that whether the sanction earlier granted deserves to be revoked/ annulled or not. 8. Each of the petitioner shall appear before the Additional D.C.F. (Wild life) on 13th May, 2002. Either on the same day or within a week thereof the concerned Additional D.C.F. shall issue show-cause notices to the petitioners giving them sufficient time to submit their replies. The concerned Additional D.C.F. after receiving the replies from each of the petitioners shall fix a date for hearing each of the petitioner. After the orders are passed by him, the same shall be communicated to each of the petitioners without any loss of time. It is expected of the Additional D.C.F. that he shall finally dispose of the matter within a period of two months from the date of the appearance of the petitioners. 9. It is, however, further directed that till the matter is finally disposed of by the Central Government no mining operations shall be carried out by any of the petitioners in the said area. 10. The petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. 11. 9. It is, however, further directed that till the matter is finally disposed of by the Central Government no mining operations shall be carried out by any of the petitioners in the said area. 10. The petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. 11. A copy of this order be supplied to each of the party within one week from today on payment of necessary charges.