JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. By means of the present Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has challenged the Mining Policy of the State and the subsequent action taken by the State Government for allowing sublease of mining to private individuals, in a forest area. 2. All the necessary parties, such as the State of Uttarakhand, Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation as well as by the Union of India have filed their counter affidavits in the matter. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his principal contention regarding the illegality has not been specifically denied by the State and the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation, which would mean an admission on their part and, therefore he does not want to file a rejoinder affidavit. The matter is, therefore, being decided finally after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respective respondents. 3. The principal contention of the petitioner before this Court is that under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, in order to undertake a non forest activity in a forest area, prior approval of Government of India is necessary. Admittedly, mining is a non forest activity and before such an activity could start in a forest area, prior approval of Government of India is mandatory. Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 reads as under:- “2. Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing, - (i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression "reserved forest" in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved; (ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose; (iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by Government; (iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for reafforestation. Explanation - For the purposes of this section, "non-forest purpose" means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for - (a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants; (b) any purpose other than reafforestation; but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wild-life, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes.” 4. The parliamentary legislation which regulates mines and minerals is known as “The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957”, (from hereinafter referred to as “the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957”). Under Section 3 (e), “minor minerals” are defined as under:- “3.Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a)……………………………………………………………… (b)…………………………………………………………….. (c)……………………………………………………………. (d)…………………………………………………………… (e) “minor minerals” means building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for prescribed purposes, and any other mineral which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a minor mineral.” 5. Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957, further gives power to the State Governments to make rules in respect of “minor minerals”. Under the above provisions, the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh had framed Rules, which are known as “Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1963. Certain changes were made by the State of U.P. from time to time. Under the Adoption and Modification Order of 2001, made under Section 87 read with Section 88 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000, the Uttarakhand Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2001 were framed which are presently applicable and which are being referred as U.P. Rules of 1963. 6. Apart from the Rules which have been stated above, the Government of Uttarakhand came out with its own policy, which is known as “Uttarkhand Mining Policy 2011” which was notified on 18th November, 2011. 6. Apart from the Rules which have been stated above, the Government of Uttarakhand came out with its own policy, which is known as “Uttarkhand Mining Policy 2011” which was notified on 18th November, 2011. Para 2 of the Mining Policy, 2011 clearly states that all the river beds and banks in the territory of Uttarakhand which have “minor minerals”, and are located in a ‘forest area’, there the mining activity for the said minor minerals would be given exclusively to Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation for a period of 05 years and in a non forest area the same activity will be carried out by two Government companies i.e. in Garhwal Division, it will be carried out by the Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited (from herein after referred to as “the GMVN”) and in Kumaun Division it will be carried out by the Kumaun Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited (from herein after referred to as “the KMVN”). It further states that under no condition will the lease be given to private individuals by the above Government Companies/Corporations. In other words, the sublease was totally prohibited. As far back on 30th April, 2001, when the Government of Uttarakhand came out with the Mining Policy of 2001, which was notified on 30th April, 2001, there was a specific mention in the policy that in a ‘forest area’ mining activity will be undertaken by Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation and it will not be further sublet to any individual. 7. Importantly, when permission was sought from Government of India, under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, a request was made by Government of Uttarakhand vide its application dated 28.05.2009. Again the State Government while doing so had assured the Central Government that it is seeking permission on an undertaking that it shall do the mining activity as per its 2001 Mining Policy. 2001 Mining Policy, inter-alia, states that mining lease which is given to the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation shall not be subleased. 8. At this juncture we must note that under Section 4 of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, the Central Government has powers to frame rules. Rules were framed by the Central Government in the year 1981 which are known as “Forest (Conservation) Rules, 1981”. 8. At this juncture we must note that under Section 4 of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, the Central Government has powers to frame rules. Rules were framed by the Central Government in the year 1981 which are known as “Forest (Conservation) Rules, 1981”. Rule 4 of the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 1981 laysdown the procedure for the State Government or its authority for approval from the Central Government, inter-alia, for doing a non forest activity in a forest area. Such an application has to be made in a form which is the part of the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 1981, where the particulars of the entire project or the activity which is undertaken by the State Government has to be furnished to the Central Government. Particulars such as project details, location of the project/scheme, item-wise break-up of the total land required for the project/scheme along with its existing land use, detail of forest land involved, details of displacement of people due to the project, details of compensatory afforestation scheme etc. have to be furnished. While giving these particulars the Forest Development Corporation, on behalf of the State Government had assured the Central Government that the mining activities will be done only by the Forest Development Corporation under its mining policy dated 30.04.2001 which was annexed along with the application/form. 9. We have already referred to the mining policy dated 30.04.2001 which remains largely unchanged till 2011 where in a forest area the mining activity shall be undertaken by the Forest Development Corporation and in no condition, lease would be given to any private individual, or subleased. 10. The Government of India, under the above conditions, referred above, granted its approval to the State Government on 15.02.2013. Thereafter, largely on the same undertaking approval was also taken from the Central Government under the Environmental Protection Act on 15.04.2011 as well. 11. Interestingly, and for reasons best known to the State Government, after they had received the approval/permission of the Government of India on the undertakings which have already been referred above, it quickly changed its Mining Policy, 2011 by means of an amendment dated 22nd March, 2013, which is Annexure 12 to the writ petition, and duly notified it on 22nd March, 2013. 12. 12. The important aspect for us to note is that as per the amended policy now in a forest area Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation can further sublet the mining activity to private individuals and the same powers have been given to Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited and Kumaun Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited in a non forest area. Since we are presently only concerned with mining activity in a “forest area”, we refrain from going into the legality or illegality of the sub lease in a non forest area, for which KMVN and GMVN have been empowered. 13. Interestingly, we must note at this juncture this policy of the Government was challenged by certain private individuals before this Court in a writ petition [Writ Petition No.2711 (M/S) of 2013] earlier. There the principal contention was that this policy is in violation of the Minor Mineral (Concessions) Rules, 2001 as well as the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, as once the State Government decides to give mining lease to private individuals then it should be given to the private individuals directly instead of giving through a Government Corporation. The learned Single Judge of this Court, however, has rejected the contention of the petitioner holding that there was nothing wrong in the policy, in its order dated 16th May, 2014. This Court has been informed that a Special Appeal has been filed against the said order of the learned Single Judge, which is also pending before this Court. What is important, however is to note that both in the Writ Petition as well as in the Special Appeal the environmental aspect as well as the violation of the Forest Act as well as the Forest (Conservation) Act was neither highlighted nor was it an issue before the Court. 14. Presently, in this Public Interest Litigation, we are concerned with a much larger aspect, which is Forest Conservation and Environmental Protection and we have to see as to whether the policy undertaken by the State Government or whether the action of the government is in violation of such laws or not? 15. The petitioner in Paragraphs 17 and 18 of this Public Interest Litigation points out the illegality of the State Government. 15. The petitioner in Paragraphs 17 and 18 of this Public Interest Litigation points out the illegality of the State Government. Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the writ petition reads as under:- “17.That under the aforesaid provisions the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation applied for grant of forest approval for undertaking mining activity in river Dabka flowing within the forest area. The application form of the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation was further recommended and forwarded by the officers of the forest department. The form so forwarded was supplemented by various other undertaking by the forest department and Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation. A copy of the application form and one of such undertaking is being annexed as Annexure no.8 to this writ petition. 18. That at this juncture it is pertinent to mention in that as per point 6 (c) of the application form filled by the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation seeking forest approval it was required to furnish a certificate that the activity of collection of minor mineral from the river flowing within forest area will be done by the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation itself. In filing necessary reply to the said point, the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation specifically relied upon the Government order dated 30-04-2001 which provided that the mining operation in forest area will be done by Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation. Thus the Forest approval was sought with an undertaking and assurance that the said activity will be conducted by the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation itself.” 16. What the petitioner is trying to highlight before this Court is that while taking the mandatory approval from the Central Government as per Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, the undertaking given by the State Government was that it will do mining activity as per the Mining Policy, 2001 (or the unamended Mining Policy of 2011, as the case might be), where it specifically said that the lease given to the Forest Development Corporation will not be sublet. This is the gravamen of the petitioner’s case. 17. The seriousness with which the Forest Development Corporation has answered the contents of Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the writ petition, in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit. All it states in para 6 is as under:- “6.That the contents of para 5 to 22 of the Public Interest Litigation need no comments.” 18. 17. The seriousness with which the Forest Development Corporation has answered the contents of Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the writ petition, in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit. All it states in para 6 is as under:- “6.That the contents of para 5 to 22 of the Public Interest Litigation need no comments.” 18. In the same manner, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, which has been sworn by none other than the Principal Secretary of the Forest Department Mr. Ranbir Singh states in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, which reads as under:- “7.that the contents of para 5 to 26 of the writ petition need no comments.” 19. In other words, it is a non specific denial which would amount to admission, both on the part of the Forest Development Corporation as well as the State Government. They, admit that they had sought approval/permission from the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act by giving an undertaking that the Forest Development Corporation would in no condition sublet the mining lease to a private individuals. 20. Union of India has also filed its counter affidavit before this Court. In its counter affidavit, Union of India has highlighted the fact that approval has been granted to the State Government under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, on undertaking that mining activity in a forest area will only be undertaken by the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation and that it would not be sublet to private individuals. Consequent to the approval, the decision of the State Government to sublet the mining lease in a forest area to private individuals is a violation of its undertaking given to the Central Government. In other words, the Union of India before this Court has strong objection to the subletting of mining lease in a forest area and the stand taken by it before this Court only vindicates the concern which the petitioner has raised before this Court in this Public Interest Litigation! 21. We are also surprised by the stand taken by the concerned officers of the Forest Development Corporation before the State Government where instead of apprising the Government of the correct situation and opposing the move of the Government to sublet the mining lease, it meekly fell in line with its officers. We refrain to say anything further on this for the moment. 22. We refrain to say anything further on this for the moment. 22. All the same, the decision of subletting the mining lease in favour of private individuals in a forest area cannot be justified, whichever way we look at it. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The Government order dated 22nd March, 2013, Annexure 12 to the writ petition, whereby the State Government has taken a decision to allow the subletting of mining lease in favour of private individuals in a forest area, either by the Forest Development Corporation or the State Government is hereby quashed. One of defence taken by the learned Additional Advocate General Mr. V.B.S. Negi today and Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Advocate General on a previous occasion before this Court was that under the new policy of subletting the “revenue” the Government is getting is far in excess to what it earned previously under the old policy. Such a defence is not even worthy of an answer except that monetary gains cannot be a reason to overlook or condone an act which is palpably illegally. At stake are issues of environment protection and forest conservation which are far more important than the small “gains” in revenue. 23. Before parting with the matter, we must note that consequent to an interim order passed by this Court on 14.11.2014, wherein though the Court had not interfered in the ongoing process whereby the lease was given to the private individuals but this Court had cautioned them by stating as under:- “Meanwhile, since the petitioner has raised an important issue which is of general public concern as well where a mining activity is being done by private individuals in a forest land, this Court directs that although presently no interference to the alleged mining activity is being made, however, it is made clear that all such private individuals or persons who will be given this sub lease, shall be doing the mining activities including the investment incurred thereon at their own risk. The State Government of Uttarakhand as well as the Forest Development Corporation shall apprise such individuals of the pendency of this Public Interest Litigation before this Court and the present order.” 24. This Court has also been informed by the learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation, Mr. The State Government of Uttarakhand as well as the Forest Development Corporation shall apprise such individuals of the pendency of this Public Interest Litigation before this Court and the present order.” 24. This Court has also been informed by the learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation, Mr. Kaparwan that pursuant to the amended policy they in any case are presently proceeding only on an experimental basis and have given only two lots to private individuals, however, consequent to the interim order dated 14.11.2014, the private individuals are in any case hesitant to undertake the mining activities. Reference is given to the letter dated 27.11.2014, wherein the highest bidder has categorically written to the Forest Development Corporation that he is aware of the Public Interest Litigation, which is pending before this Court and the interim order passed therein and, therefore, he is not able to deposit the second installment or to undertake the mining activity. All such persons to whom any rights had accrued consequent to the action of the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation were made aware of the pendency of the writ petition as well as the order passed therein, states the counsel for the Forest Development Corporation. In spite of their knowledge, they have failed to put in appearance. Mr. Virendra Kaparwan, learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation further states that he had informed them in writing about the order of the Court. He further states that although lease was given to them but mining activities by the private individuals have not taken place as of now. In other words, there is no mining activity by private individuals. 25. No order as to costs.