Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 436 (HP)

Dalip Singh v. State Of Hp

2025-03-22

SATYEN VAIDYA, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, ACJ. This Public Interest Litigation, purportedly at the instance of two Panchayats, has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) By issuing writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take action immediately on the resolution passed the Panchayats (Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-4) and to take action on the representation of the petitioners (Annexure P-7). (ii) By issuing writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make immediate inspection on the spot and to ascertain the extent of danger to the life & property of people at large by the sand quarries being allowed to be operated in the area by the private respondents and other quarry operators. (iii) By issuing writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue directions to stop operation of sand quarries being operated upon hillock of Solan-Subathu road as shown in site plan (Annexure P-1).” 2. It is averred that the villages of the Panchayats are located by the side of the road, which road runs from Solan towards Subathu and all the villages are on the same hill/mountain and scattered above and below the same road. There is agricultural land around the villages in the form of fields which are the source of livelihood of the majority of the people residing in these villages and the same hillock is running around 8 kms from Solan on the same road. At the top of the same hill, there are so many sand quarries, which are being operated by different persons for extracting sand, stone etc. Since these quarries are located on the upper part of the same mountain are being operated through heavy JCB machines, the same is causing not only destruction to the area but has become a potential threat for the villagers residing downstream due to soil erosion and land slide and damage to the houses, landed property etc. 3. Since these quarries are located on the upper part of the same mountain are being operated through heavy JCB machines, the same is causing not only destruction to the area but has become a potential threat for the villagers residing downstream due to soil erosion and land slide and damage to the houses, landed property etc. 3. The official-respondents have filed the reply to the petition wherein it is averred that the mining area of the respondents No. 9 and 10 was inspected and it was found that there was no mining activity being carried out in the area in question and further no damage has been caused to the road near the mining area, however, due to sudden heavy rainfall far-away gullies had over-flooded and blocked the said road for few hours only. There is no damage to the agricultural land down hill of the said road. 4. It is further averred that as per the provisions contained in Rule 57 of the Himachal Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) and Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2015 , the respective lease holders are bound to carry out the mining activities in a scientific and systematic manner as per approved mining plan as well as in accordance with the terms and conditions of the mining lease. As such, in order to ensure mandate of said provision on field, the Mining Officer visits the mining lease area from time to time. 5. As regards this case, respondent No. 5-Mining Officer, Solan had visited the mining lease of respondent No. 9 in the month of August, 2023, where he did observe certain irregularities and issued Show Cause Notice dated 19.08.2023 to both the lease holders with the direction to submit their replies within 15 days. 6. The Mining Officer after considering the reply of the lease holders, issued order dated 08.11.2023 to both the lease holders as per the mandate of the provision contained in Rule 57(3) (supra) with a direction to compound the offence otherwise the prosecution shall be initiated against them. 7. In compliance to the said orders, both the lease holders compounded their offence with the fine of Rs.50,000/- each. It has further been averred that the mining leases can only be made operational, if the respective lease holders do away with the irregularities, which were observed by the Mining Officer. 8. 7. In compliance to the said orders, both the lease holders compounded their offence with the fine of Rs.50,000/- each. It has further been averred that the mining leases can only be made operational, if the respective lease holders do away with the irregularities, which were observed by the Mining Officer. 8. It needs to be noticed that no further irregularity or illegality has come on record after the aforesaid order was passed by respondent No. 5. 9. Now the moot question is whether the mining in the area can be stopped as is prayed for in this petition? We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 10. At the outset, it needs to be observed that the petitioners have not at all made any allegations regarding there being violation of any statutory provision at the behest of respondents No. 9 to 11. The petition is bereft of any specific details and the allegations are general in nature. 11. In the given circumstances, this Court is required to be mindful of the fact that its decision has to be consistent with the principles of sustainable development after taking into account the relevant considerations so that the decision is a balanced decision. The Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that balance between environment protection and development activities has to be maintained by strictly followings the principles of sustainable development. This is a development strategy that caters to the needs of the present without negotiating the ability of upcoming generation to satisfy the needs. The strict observance of sustainable development alone which can put us on a path that ensures development while protecting the environment, a path that works for all peoples and for all generations. It is a guarantee to the present and a bequeath to the future. The development activities are meant to benefit more people while maintaining such balance. This can be ensured only by strict adherence of sustainable development without which life of coming generations will be in jeopardy. 12. Bearing in mind the aforesaid, it needs to be noticed that the allegations so made in the petition are far too genuine and that by itself cannot be a ground to stop the mining activities particularly in absence of there being any allegation of violation of statutory provisions. 13. 12. Bearing in mind the aforesaid, it needs to be noticed that the allegations so made in the petition are far too genuine and that by itself cannot be a ground to stop the mining activities particularly in absence of there being any allegation of violation of statutory provisions. 13. A lease holder is entitled to mine and carry out extraction within the framework of law and it is only, if there is a violation, that he can be prosecuted or punished in any manner. 14. As regards there being erosion etc. as is suggested by the certain reports on record, obviously, extraction would essentially involve erosion. Therefore, it is only in cases of there being breach of some mandatory provisions of law, that the Court can intervene, because as observed above, there is necessity to strike balance between development and ecology. 15. In addition thereto, the people of the area cannot be denied the availability of sand which is an essential component of construction material, especially, when the nearest quarries or deposits of sand can only be found in the adjoining State of Haryana. 16. Indubitably, environment and development are not shown enemies of each other. It would be an anomalous approach to consider environment as development as a hurdle in development and vice-versa. There has to be a just balance between two competing interests and a time-tested principle of striking this balance is timely invocation of mitigating environmental measures amidst a development activity. 17. In addition to the above, we do not find that there is any potential threat or danger to the houses and land of the residents of the two panchayats and the mere fact that there has been a cloud-burst in the past cannot by itself be a justification to stop mining activities, especially, when such cloud-burst is neither attributed nor attributable to the mining activities. 18. As regards the erosion, we are informed at the Bar that the mining activities are not permitted during rainy season, especially, monsoon season, and if that be so, obviously, the petitioners cannot complain of the erosion being a potential threat to their lives, houses and landed property. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. The parties are left to bear their own costs.