Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 714 (JHR)

KAMALJEET SINGH AHLUWALIA v. STATE OF BIHAR

2005-09-16

R.K.MERATHIA

body2005
Judgment : ( 1 ) NOBODY appears for the petitioner, Mr. Modi, learned G. P. I, appears for the State. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition was filed for restraining the respondents, from interfering with the mining activities of the petitioner on the area broken up prior to 25-10-1980 i. e. prior to coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and to allow the petitioner to continue the mining activities on the broken up area and also for movement of vehicles carrying minerals till the subsistence of the extended period of the lease. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner one M/s. Karamchand Thapar and Sons was granted mining lease for minerals Iron ore and Manganese ore over an area of 320 acres in village bariaburu and Tatiba on 5-9-1969 for a period of 20 years. The State Government permitted the said lessee to assign the lease in favour of the petitioner for which a registered indenture was entered into by and between the said lessee and the petitioner and the petitioner became mining lessee under the State for the remaining period of the said lease i. e. up to 4-9-1989. On 29-8-1989 the petitioner made an application for renewal of the said mining lease. According to the petitioner an application for release of the forest land was also made. Petitioners grievance was that the State Government did not pass any order on the said renewal application and the concerned respondents did not allow the petitioner to work even on the broken up area. Petitioner filed a review application before the Central Government against the alleged deemed refusal order. The central Government passed an order on 1-5-1989 directing the State Government to pass necessary orders with regard to renewal of mining lease within 200 days. According to the petitioner no order was passed by the state Government on the said renewal application and, accordingly, as per Rule 24-A of the Mineral Concession Rules, the lease stood extended for a further period of one year. ( 4 ) MR. According to the petitioner no order was passed by the state Government on the said renewal application and, accordingly, as per Rule 24-A of the Mineral Concession Rules, the lease stood extended for a further period of one year. ( 4 ) MR. Modi pointed out that even according to the petitioner he was not entitled to work after 1990 without the renewal of the lease but the petitioner filed this writ application in the year 1995 on the basis of certain orders passed in other cases and obtained an order of stay on 29-8-1995 restraining the respondents from interfering with the mining activities of the petitioner on the broken up area of 14. 75 hectares out of 320 acres of lease hold area. Mr. Modi relying on air 1987 SC 1073 , Ambika Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat submitted that even for working on an area broken up prior to coming into force of the Forest (Conservation)Act, 1980 I. e. 25-10-1980, a lessee has to obtain permission from the Central Government in terms of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Mr. Modi further submitted that after considering the judgment in the case of State of Bihar v. Bansi ram Modi, AIR 1985 SC 814 the Honble supreme Court in the case of Ambika Quarry works (supra) held the permission of Central Government is necessary for working on an area broken up prior to coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 i. e. 25-10-1980. Mr. Modi further submitted that a petition for vacating stay was also filed on 8-4-1987 but it appears that no order could be passed on the same. In the circumstances, he submitted that if the petitioner is continuing mining work, the same is wholly illegal and it must be stopped forthwith. ( 5 ) I find force in the submissions of Mr. Modi that in view of the said judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ambika Quarry Works ( AIR 1987 SC 1073 ) (supra), this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 5 ) I find force in the submissions of Mr. Modi that in view of the said judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ambika Quarry Works ( AIR 1987 SC 1073 ) (supra), this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. According to the petitioner also, his lease expired in the year 1989 and even one year more is added to it, on the ground that no order was passed by the State government, in view of Rule 24-A of the mineral Concession Rules, the lease expired in the year 1990 and this writ petition was filed in the year 1995 without there being any cause of action. In view of the said judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ambika Quarry Works (supra), it must be held that even for working on an area broken up prior to coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 i. e. 25-10-1980, the permission of Central Government is necessary. I find no merit in this writ application. The interim order dated 29-8-1995 is vacated. If petitioner is continuing with mining operation, it must be stopped forthwith. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. As prayed, let a copy of the judgment be handed over to Mr. Pradip Modi, for communication. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .