Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 681 (MP)

Veer Singh v. State of M. P.

2011-06-27

S.K.GANGELE, SHEEL NAGU

body2011
Judgment: 1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the demand notice, Annexure-P/3, dated 20-11-2009 and order dated 23-8-2010, Annexure-P/2. In pursuance to an application of the petitioner, the petitioners was granted quarry lease of morrum mines for the period from 4-7-2007 to 31-3-2009. An agreement was executed between the petitioner and the mining officers to this effect. A copy of the agreement has been filed as Annexure-P/1 along with the petition. In pursuance to the agreement the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 20,750/- and earnest money of Rs. 1,03,750/-. 2. A show cause notice, Annexure-P/2 was issued to the petitioner mentioning the fact that the High Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 1574/08 vide order dated 2-7-2008 stopped the mining operation of the petitioner in which No Objection Certificated from the M.P. Pollution Control Board had not been received. An R.R.C. was issued to. 3. The petitioner in regard to recovery of the amount of Rs. 3,27,005/- with 24% interest. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid recovery in a Writ Petition No. 2116/2010. The aforesaid petition has been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 26-4-2010 with the following directions:- "26/04/2010 Petitioner by Shri J.P. Kushwah, Advocate. Respondents/State by Shri Vishal Mishra, Government Advocate, on advance copy. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the petition with liberty to filed objections with regard to revenue recovery certificate before the appropriate authority. It is made clear that the appropriate authority may also consider the prayer of the petitioner for stay of the execution proceedings. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of with the liberty as stated herein above." 4. Thereafter the petitioner submitted a representation and vide order dated 23-8-2010, the representation has been rejected and the petitioner has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,27,000/-. 5. The petitioner has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,27,000/- on the ground that the petitioner had not received No Objection Certificate from Pollution Control Board for operating quarry mining and thereafter directions were issued to close the mines. The petitioner did not deposit the installments, hence, the security amount was forfeited and the petitioner was further directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,27,000/-. 3,27,000/- on the ground that the petitioner had not received No Objection Certificate from Pollution Control Board for operating quarry mining and thereafter directions were issued to close the mines. The petitioner did not deposit the installments, hence, the security amount was forfeited and the petitioner was further directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,27,000/-. It is also a fact that the petitioner stopped the mining operation in pursuance to the order passed by the Collector, which was issued in compliance of the order passed by the High Court. 6. This Court in the case of Ajay Dubey vs. State of M.P. & Ors., reported in 2011 (2) MPHT 122(DB), has held as under in regard to taking proper permission from M.P. Pollution Control Board for quarrying the operations of sand and 'bajri'. The relevant directions are as under: "31. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the provisions of notification dated 14.9.2006 issued in exercise of powers under Rule 5(3)(a) of the Environment Protection) Rules, 1986 do not apply to quarrying operations of sand and 'bajri' in view of Rule 49(1) of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996. Consequently, no prior environmental clearance is required to be obtained in respect of quarrying of sand and 'bajri'. Needless to state that if any mining or quarrying activity which is covered under notification dated 14.9.2006 is being carried on in contravention of provisions of Notification dated 14.9.2006, the State Government shall take effective steps immediately to stop such an activity in accordance with law." The petitioner was also granted mining lease for quarrying operations of morrum. The petitioner had already closed the mining operation in pursuance to the order passed by the Collector because he had not received No Objection Certificate. In this view of the matter, the petition of the petitioner is partly allowed. The recovery from the petitioner in pursuance to the order, dated 23-8-2010, Annexure-P/7 ordering the recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,27,000/- with 24% interest is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.