Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 727 (MP)

M. P. Lime Works v. State of M. P.

2002-07-31

ARUN MISHRA

body2002
Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER is challenging the order dated 27-8-98 passed by Govt. of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests refusing to give no objection certificate under Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of 1. 33 hectare of reserved forest land for renewal of Dolomite and Soap Stone Mining lease. The permission has been refused as area is situated near Bheraghat which is within the reserved forest area and on consideration of facts and circumstances, the Govt. of India has taken the decision. The petitioner was having the lease for the area in question which expired in the year 1988; Central Government had made an enquiry from the State Government regarding the area in question and also whether mining department of the State was ready to grant renewal. ( 2. ) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner submits that the State Government has recommended the case for grant of permission under Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; the order passed by the Govt. of India is contrary to the advice made by the State Government. ( 3. ) RESPONDENT No. 3 in the return submits that site was inspected by Dy. Conservator of Forests (Central) of the Regional Office, Bhopal on 15-12-1997. During the inspection, it was found that site is very near about 100 mt. from "bheraghat", a tourist spot of National importance and important water course in Jabalpur. The proposal was discussed in State Advisory Group (hereinafter referred to as "sag") on 15-1-1998 and SAG decided to recommend for rejection of the proposal since the proposed mining site is located very close to bheraghat" which is a tourist spot of national importance and important water course. On the directions of the Addl. Inspector General of Forests, the proposal was reviewed by the SAG on 22-7-98 and the SAG reconfirmed its earlier recommendation of rejecting the proposal. ( 4. ) IN view of the return filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 5 it is clear that site cannot be allowed to be operated at all as it is located near "bheraghat". The petitioner lease had expired in 1988 that is 14 years before. Area is in reserved forest and renewal has been rightly refused. Learned Counsel for petitioner urged that distance is more not 100 mts. ; there is nothing to disbelieve return of respondents. The petitioner lease had expired in 1988 that is 14 years before. Area is in reserved forest and renewal has been rightly refused. Learned Counsel for petitioner urged that distance is more not 100 mts. ; there is nothing to disbelieve return of respondents. Even otherwise the area is admittedly in reserved forest; mining operation cannot be allowed. Learned Counsel then submitted that in nearby areas such operations arc being undertaken. In my opinion, "bheraghat" is a spot of immense national importance and an important water course of Jabalpur on Narmada river; no mining operation around it can be allowed which may be destructive to ecology of area; the respondents are directed to see if any such mining operations are taking place in or around Bheraghat in close vicinity, such operations can not be permitted. A report in this regard be submitted by the respondents before this Court pointing out how many queries arc operating in close vicinity and the exact distance from water course and effect on ecology within eight weeks from today. ( 5. ) THIS writ petition is dismissed. However, report be filed and be registered as MCC and be placed before this Court for consideration. C. C. as per rules.