Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2764 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Ashwani Chobisa

2005-10-21

HARBANS LAL, V.K.BALI

body2005
Judgment 1. While disposing of Public Interest Litigation in the matter of Ashwani Chobisa & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors., a Division Bench of this Court on 20.10.2004 gave 10 directions. The said directions have been mentioned in the main Judgment and need not be reproduced in this order. 2. The prayer in the present application, that has been filed for reviewing the aforesaid Judgment pertains to only 5 directions reproduced below: -“(4). The State shall take immediate steps to ensure compliance of the recommendations made in the report of the Central Mine Planning, Design Institute Ltd., Gondwana, Place Kantac Road, Ranchi; (6) The State shall take effective steps for reclaimation of abandoned mines by having them filled up by over burden, waste and fly ash from the thermal power plants. (7) Minesfrom which water is being discharged should be closed to prevent wastage of water and depletion of ground water; (9) All out efforts should be made for plantation of trees in the mining areas as well as along the National High Way No. 79, where trees have been cut in large number for widening of the road. The number and variety of trees, vegetation and shrubs to be planted in the mining areas shall be as per the advice of the Forest Department. No mining activity shall take place before planting of trees shrubs and vegetation in accordance with the advice of the Forest Department and acting thereupon. That apart the mine owners shall secure a certificate from the Forest Department certifying the extent and nature of the plantation which is required to be undertaken; (10) The miner owners shall not be allowed to increase their production without receiving the permission from the Ministry of Environment and consent from the Rajasthan Pollution Board.” 3. Notice of this review application was given and all those, who wanted to contest, have entered appearance. 4. Mr. Bharat Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General, pertaining to direction No. 4 reproduced above contends that the recommendations made in the report of the Central Mine Planning, Design Institute Ltd., Gondwana, Place Kantac Road, Ranchi, were a subject matter of objections raised by the State Government. At the time, directions aforesaid came to be issued, said objections were pending disposal before the Central Government. 5. At the time, directions aforesaid came to be issued, said objections were pending disposal before the Central Government. 5. Pursuant to the objections filed by the State Government, the Central Government so far, has only approved recommendations with regard to Alwar District. With regard to other districts the objections raised by the State Government are still pending. He contends that as and when the objections raised by the State Government are decided and final recommendations come into being, steps shall be taken to comply with direction No. 4. In so far as District Alwar is concerned, directions contained in Item No. 4 shall be carried out in letter and spirit. 6. There cannot be any dispute to what has been urged by Mr. Bharat Vyas. Recommendations referred to in direction No. 4 were only in the draft recommendations which at the time the same were given, had not matured for implementation. In the circumstances mentioned above, the directions contained in Item No. 4 with regard to Alwar District would be compiled with by taking immediate steps right now. The same with regard to other districts of the State of Rajasthan would be complied with and necessary steps taken when final recommendations are made after dealing with objections of the State of Rajasthan. We have been informed that the State of Rajasthan has filed objections on 04.09.2003. A period of more than two years has gone by. Counsel appearing for the Central Government is present. He has not given any reason why for such a long time objections raised by the State Government have not been decided. We thus direct that the objections raised by the State of Rajasthan with regard to all the districts but for Alwar District shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. In so far as direction contained in Item No. 6 are concerned, Mr. Bharat Vyas states that the said directions shall be complied with in accordance with the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. There cannot be any dispute nor any has been shown by learned Counsel representing the other side for compliance of the directions contained in item No. 6. Bharat Vyas states that the said directions shall be complied with in accordance with the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. There cannot be any dispute nor any has been shown by learned Counsel representing the other side for compliance of the directions contained in item No. 6. We thus order that directions contained in Item No. 6 would be complied with in accordance with the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (ibid). 8. Pertaining to directions contained in Item No. 7, it is stated by Mr. Bharat Vyas that the competent authority with regard to certain mines has given permission where there is underground water. He states that once the competent authority has granted permission to work out such mines, the same may not be stopped and in case the directions contained in Item No. 7 is complied where permission has been granted by the competent authority, it would result into closing down all major mines in the State. 9. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that direction contained in Item No. 7 would be applicable only where requisite permission has not been granted by the competent authority. 10. In so far as modification of the directions contained in Item No. 9 and 10 is concerned, we find no merit in the same. 11. The review application is accordingly disposed of . 12. The learned Counsel representing the respondents are apprehensive that the order passed by us today may not adversely affect the directions in other items. We make it clear that the modification of the order only pertains to directions as mentioned above and not with regard to other directions given by the Division Bench. 13. Civil Misc. Application bearing Inward No. 15729/06.07.2005 moved by Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 is dismissed with permission to the applicant to move an independent application for review of the directions which might have adversely affected the rights of the applicant.