Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 561 (HP)

JAGAT RAM v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-06-19

A.M.KHANWILKAR, KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, C.J. 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. THIS petition takes exception to the decision founded on the recommendation made by the Committee, which inquired into the feasibility of carrying on mining activity on the land in question, on the basis of the direction given by this Court vide order, dated 6th July, 2012 in CWP No. 10357 of 2011. The Committee has plainly found that it may not be feasible to undertake systematic and scientific mining activity, as per the mining plan, in the available portion of land admeasuring about one bigha only after excluding the land up to 50 meters beyond the edge of existing link road. According to the petitioner, the competent Authority had analyzed this aspect on the earlier occasion and granted mining permission to the petitioner in respect of the same land. 3. RELIANCE is placed on the joint inspection report prepared in respect of mining lease/renewal of mining lease application preferred by the petitioner, dated 25th February, 2011. That report was prepared by the Tehsildar as representative of SDM, Solan, who acted as Chairman of the Committee. The other members of the Committee were ACF, Member, Forest Department Solan; JE, IPH, representative of X.EN, IPH Solan; AAE, Section Jaunaji, representative of X.EN. PWD, Solan and MI, representative of Mining Officer, Solan. 4. ON close and fair reading of the said report, we find that no clear satisfaction has been recorded that the petitioner would be in a position to carry out systematic and scientific mining activity as per the mining plan in one bigha of land. Much emphasis was placed on the observation found in the report that the applicant is advised to carry out mining in scientific way according to prescribed rules and regulations. In our opinion, that statement will be of no avail to the petitioner. It is not saying the same thing which has been found by the subsequent Committee. In the report under consideration, the Committee has clearly recorded that it may not be possible and feasible to undertake systematic and scientific mining activity as per the mining plan in the remainder one bigha land. 5. FURTHER reliance was placed on the contents of the affidavit of the State Geologist. In the report under consideration, the Committee has clearly recorded that it may not be possible and feasible to undertake systematic and scientific mining activity as per the mining plan in the remainder one bigha land. 5. FURTHER reliance was placed on the contents of the affidavit of the State Geologist. While responding to para 13 of the previous writ petition, being CWP No. 10357 of 2011, he has stated that mining could be possible as per Working-cum Environment Management Plan in the remainder land admeasuring approximately 112 bighas (1175 sq. mtrs.). 6. THIS is the statement on affidavit of the State Geologist and not the opinion and satisfaction recorded by the Committee, who is competent to decide the said issue, which is a technical matter. No doubt, the Assistant Geologist was member of the said Committee, but that does not improve upon the statement found in the Committee's report, which was silent in this regard. In the Committee, constituted as per the order of this Court for reconsideration of the entire matter, we find that clear statement has been made against the petitioner. Furthermore, the Committee, constituted in terms of order passed by this Court in the previous writ petition, was of senior officers consisting of SDM as Chairman of the Committee; Executive Engineer, IPH, Solan; Assistant Engineer, HPPWD, Solan; Executive Engineer, Pollution Control Board and Mining Officer, Solan. There is no reason to discard the opinion recorded by this Committee on the ground that the earlier Committee had recommended grant of mining lease to the petitioner. 7. AS a matter of fact, in the previous writ petition filed, the said report was the subject matter and the Court, being satisfied that fresh inquiry needs to be undertaken, issued direction to constitute new Committee. As a result, it is not possible for us nor it is open to the petitioner to rest his argument on the basis of the report of the earlier Committee. 8. TAKING over all view of the matter, we see no reason to depart from the opinion of the Committee that it may not be feasible nor advisable to allow the petitioner to undertake mining activity on one bigha land, which cannot be done in a scientific and systematic manner, as per the mining plan. Hence, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also disposed of.