Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1776 (JHR)

Jai Ram Oraon @ Baiga v. State of Jharkhand

2017-10-11

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, B.B.MANGALMURTI

body2017
ORDER : Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner claiming himself to be the resident of Majhatoli under Kurochchatrapur Panchayat under Raidih Block, District Gumla, has sought stoppage of mining work and blasting of Mahadania Hillock carried out by Respondent No. 7 and 8 on the basis of lease for stone quarry executed in the year 2011 and 2016 respectively alleging that the blasting work is likely to cause serious harm to the school going children. 3. Petitioner relies upon Annexure-1, which is a letter of the Circle Officer, Raidih dated 21.4.2016 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla on the subject of mining in illegal manner. It alleged non-cooperation of the Mining Officials of the area in the matter of furnishing of the lease documents. It has also referred to the blasting work being undertaken, which has caused crack in the Kurochchatarpur Panchayat Bhawan. It states that activities of one Jai Kishan 10+2 School and Hostel is being affected. Petitioner has also relied upon minutes of the meeting held under the chairmanship of the Prakhand Pramukh of Kuruchchatarpur Panchayat in the presence of the Block Development Officer-cum-Cirlce Officer, Raidih, representatives of the local Police Station, Mukhia and other villagers. Mining work being carried out has been discussed in the said meeting. It has also sought to explain that the mining work is being carried out for supply of stone chips for the Kondra road. Some villagers have asserted that crusher work be undertaken from one person named therein. 4. Petitioner in the entire body of the writ petition has however nowhere stated any specific information as to the exact distance of the school from the lease hold area. 5. In response thereto, the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 3 and 4 asserts that mining lease of stone quarry has been granted in favour of Pradeep Kumar and Ramswaroop Chaudhry over an area of 1.90 acres and 4.00 acres respectively on 15.9.2011 and 10.2.2016 respectively, both for the period of 10 years. Before grant of the lease report from Circle Officer and Block Development Officer of Raidih have been obtained. The B.D.O had recommended grant of lease in favour of the Applicants/Lessee after conducting meeting of Gram Sabha and taking their consent. The lease land is 'gairmajurua khas' land and was free for settlement for mining lease. Before grant of the lease report from Circle Officer and Block Development Officer of Raidih have been obtained. The B.D.O had recommended grant of lease in favour of the Applicants/Lessee after conducting meeting of Gram Sabha and taking their consent. The lease land is 'gairmajurua khas' land and was free for settlement for mining lease. It is categorically stated at para 8 of the counter affidavit that lease area is far away from school or any other common public place. Respondents have further stated that both lessees are operating the mining lease area, submitting monthly return of production and dispatch of stone and paying due royalty to the Government. It is stated that the stones produced from quarry is meeting the requirement of the gramin road being constructed in the vicinity of the lease area under sanction of the State Government. There is no other source of stone from any other sources. This was considered while granting lease by the concerned Government Officials including the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla. Otherwise construction of road could not have been done. During the entire period of these lease no untoward incidence of any injury to man and animal, and adverse affect on local environment has ever been reported as yet. In both the lease only local person from the nearby village have been employed, who are getting wages, which is source of their livelihood. It is alleged that the writ petition has been filed with a motive to harass the respondents for ulterior gain. The contention of the petitioner that so many persons have submitted their grievances for cancellation of the lease is false and manipulated. The signature of 109 persons is not authenticated by any authority. Learned counsel for the Respondent State submits that lessees have also obtained statutory clearance like consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board. Petitioner's allegation that Jail Kishan School is adjacent to the lease area is not correct rather it is far away from the vicinity of lease area as stated at Para 19 of the counter affidavit. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however reiterated his submission and stated that mining work is affecting the normal activities of the school in question. 7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and the relevant facts and materials on record noted above. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however reiterated his submission and stated that mining work is affecting the normal activities of the school in question. 7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and the relevant facts and materials on record noted above. While it appears on the face that petitioner's allegation of serious harm to the activities and students of the said School, said to be in the vicinity of lease hold area, is unsubstantiated and there is no specific averment stating as to the exact distance of the school from the lease hold area, Respondents on their part have made clear assertion that the School and the Hostel are quite far away from the mining site. There are no incidences of harm to anyone by operation of the lease. We are therefore, constrained from issuing any specific direction in relation to the mining activities being carried out in respect of the 2 leases on the basis of materials on record. However, it is being observed that if the Pollution Control Board has issued consent to operate stipulating conditions for operation of the lease in question, on being approached, the Pollution Control Board may inquire into any specific instances of violation of consent to operate certificate granted to the lessees or any such likelihood of harm being caused to the school going children or residents; if the lease hold land is stretching beyond the prohibited distance from its area. 8. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.