Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 588 (MP)

Rakesh Bharti v. State of M. P.

2016-07-21

ALOK ARADHE, ANAND PATHAK

body2016
ORDER 1. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. 2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 22.6.2015 passed by the Collector as well as Director, Geology and Mines, respectively. In order to appreciate the petitioner's challenge to the impugned orders, few facts need mention which are stated infra. 3. The petitioner was initially granted quarry lease in respect of land bearing Survey No.2469/26, admeasuring 2.517 hectare, of which he is the owner. The aforesaid land is situated at Gird, Datia. A permission was granted to the petitioner on 20.4.2001 to install the store crusher for a period of ten years, i.e., up to 19.4.2011. The petitioner applied for renewal under rule 17 of the Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 on 15.3.2010. Since no decision was taken on the application for renewal submitted by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition, namely, Writ Petition No.2600/2011, which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.4.2011 with the direction to decide the application within two months. 4. The Collector, thereupon, raised a query as to whether the land of the petitioner is situate within a distance of 250 meters of Bhuta Forest and, therefore, the matter was sent to the committee. However, the committee on inspection of the spot has found that the land of the petitioner is situate is far more than 360 meters. On receipt of the report of the committee, the Collector rejected the application on the ground that the proceeding for establishment of Bhuta Forest as National Park has been initiated. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing an appeal. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed by the appellate authority vide order dated 16.2.2012 and the matter was remitted for reconsideration in the light of the order dated 22.10.2011 passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, by which it was directed that the proposal for establishment of the National Park has been cancelled. However, the Collector by an order dated 26.4.2012 again rejected the application and sent the matter to the appellate authority for review of its order dated 16.2.2012. 5. The petitioner thereupon again filed a writ petition, namely, Writ Petition No. 4387/2012. However, the Collector by an order dated 26.4.2012 again rejected the application and sent the matter to the appellate authority for review of its order dated 16.2.2012. 5. The petitioner thereupon again filed a writ petition, namely, Writ Petition No. 4387/2012. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 17.1.2013 with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner thereupon filed an appeal, which was allowed vide order dated 12.4.2013 by the appellate authority and the matter was remitted to the Collector. The Collector did not decide the application for renewal. Thereupon, the petitioner once again was constrained to file a writ petition, namely, Writ Petition No.5109/2013, which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 5.8.2013 with the direction to the Collector to decide the application within sixty days. However, the Collector did not comply with the directions issued by this Court, thereupon, a contempt petition, namely Contempt Petition No.294/2014 was filed in which a statement was made on behalf of the Collector that the Collector has already dismissed the application on 21.11.2014. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal which has been dismissed by order dated 22.6.2015. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court to the documents contained in Annexures P-12 and P-13, has submitted that the application for renewal of the quarry lease submitted by the petitioner has been rejected on non-existing grounds. It is further submitted that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not even been appreciated by the appellate authority. On the other hand, Shri Vishal Mishra, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited, T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and others [ (2011)7 SCC 338 ], the matter be remitted to the competent authority, namely, Collector to decide the application afresh in the light of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in para 122 of the aforesaid decision. 7. We have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. 7. We have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. The Collector has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner inter alia on the following grounds :- (i) that, the Divisional Forest Officer in his report dated 9.5.2011 has stated that different birds and animals are found adjacent to the land of the petitioner; (ii) that, several plants having medicinal value are situate near the land of the petitioner; (iii) that, after a period of three years it is not proper to renew the lease granted to the petitioner. 8. From perusal of Annexure P-12, i.e., the communication issued by Divisional Forest Officer Datia dated 28.3.2014 to Collector Datia, it is evident that the Divisional Forest Officer has submitted that the land of the petitioner is situate at a distance of 360 meters from the forest and the land of the petitioner is a revenue land and the Forest Department has no objection to grant of renewal of lease. Similarly, from perusal of communication dated 30.10.2012 sent by Chief Wild Life Warden to the Additional Secretary, Government of M.P., it is evident that adjacent to the land of the petitioner, animals belonging to the specified category are not found, therefore, the same cannot be developed either as a Tourist Centre nor there is any need to set up Animal Rescue Centre. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has neither been appreciated by the Collector nor by the appellate authority. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed in one paragraph by a non-speaking order, which reads as under :- esjs }kjk izLrqr rdksZa dk Jo.k fd;k x;k rFkk vfHkys[kksa dk ijh{k.k fu;eksa ds izdk'k esa fd;k x;kA ;g fLFkfr Li"V gksrh gS fd e/; izns'k xkS.k [kfut fu;e] 1996 ds fu;e 18¼2½ esa ;g izko/kku gS fd eatwjh izkf/kdkjh ,slh tk¡p tSlh og mfpr le>s djus ds i'pkr~ iwoZ esa Lohd`r mR[kfuiês vof/k dh lekfIr ds iwoZ mR[kuu iêk iznku dj ldsxk] uohdj.k dj ldsxk ;k mls eatwj djusa ls bUdkj dj ldsxkA dyDVj nfr;k }kjk oueaMykf/kdkjh ds izfrosnu ds vk/kkj ij mR[kfuiêk uohuhdj.k ;ksX; ugha ik;k x;k gSA bl vk/kkj ij ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 21-11-2014 dks ;Fkkor j[krs gq, izLrqr vihy ,rn~nkjk vLohdkj dh tkrh gSA 9. In S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India [ (1990)4 SCC 594 ], the Supreme Court has held that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi judicial authorities. While emphasizing the need for assigning reasons, it was held that giving of reasons minimizes the chances of arbitrariness and hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law. In Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others [ (2010)3 SCC 732 ], it has been held by the Supreme Court that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. It has further been held that recording of reasons is a principle of natural justice. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. 10. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal position, the order passed by the appellate authority suffers from the vice of non-application of mind, therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 21.11.2014 and 22.6.2015 are quashed. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, in the light of the communication dated 28.3.2014 sent by Divisional Forest Officer, Datia to Collector as well as communication dated 30.10.2012 sent by Chief Wild Life Warden to Additional Secretary, Government of M.P., Bhopal. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.