Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 220 (UTT)

Prakash Singh Bisht v. Union of India

2024-03-22

RAKESH THAPLIYAL, RITU BAHRI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ritu Bahri, CJ. Urgency Applications (IA Nos. 9106 & 9107 of 2024) are allowed, and this Writ Petition is taken up for hearing. In the Urgency Applications, all the parties have put in appearance. Counsel for the State has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 4 as well. 2. In this case, respondent no. 7 had been granted Environmental Clearance, as per notification issued by the EIA on 14.09.2006 for soapstone mining. Annexure No. 8 is the letter dated 03.03.2016, granting clearance for carrying out the mining activity through open cast mining method. After this clearance was granted, permission has been granted to respondent no. 7, vide letter dated 31.07.2021. This letter dated 31.07.2021 has been placed on record by way of counter affidavit of respondent no. 7. 3. Counsel for the State has also not disputed this permission granted to respondent no. 7. 4. Counsel for respondent no. 7 states that, after this permission was granted, with respect to land admeasuring 10.407 Hectares, 6.250 Hectares is the land, which is a part of the forest area, and permission regarding said land can be given only by the Central Government. He states that, as per the permission granted to him, he will not do any mining on the abovesaid 6.250 Hectares land. He further submits that, with respect to the remaining land, there is no bar, and he will abide by all the conditions of Annexure No. 8 dated 03.03.2016. 5. In the letter dated 31.07.2021, as per Condition No. 5, mining has to be done by semi- mechanized method, without adopting drilling and blasting operation. 6. Since the dispute with regard to 6.250 Hectares of forest land does not survive, as counsel for respondent no. 7 has stated that he will not operate on the said 6.250 Hectares of land, as that clearance/permission has to be granted by the Central Government, he will only operate on the remaining land. 7. Counsel for the Union of India has also stated that this 6.250 Hectares’ land is protected land. This fact is also stated in the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 6. 8. Counsel for the State has to monitor the mining operation, as per the permission granted on 31.07.2021. 9. This Writ Petition is being disposed of, with a direction that respondent no. This fact is also stated in the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 6. 8. Counsel for the State has to monitor the mining operation, as per the permission granted on 31.07.2021. 9. This Writ Petition is being disposed of, with a direction that respondent no. 7 can go on with the process of mining, as per the permission granted on 31.07.2021 (Annexure No. 1 to the counter affidavit of respondent no. 7), except on the land admeasuring 6.250 Hectares, which is a part of the forest land. 10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.