Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
SUNIL B. SHUKRE, ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.
Orange City Stone Crusher Owners Association - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2153, 2163, 2731 of 2022
Decided on : 14-10-2022
quarry permit - Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013 - Rule 59, Rule 61 - The court discussed the provisions of Rules 59 and 61 of the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013, which govern the grant of quarry permits for extraction and removal of minor minerals. The court highlighted the distinction between 'quarry lease' and 'quarry permit' and emphasized that the Rules do not require the submission of an environmental clearance certificate for the grant of a quarry permit, unlike for a quarry lease. The court also emphasized that the executive instruction requiring the submission of an environmental clearance certificate for a quarry permit was contrary to the provisions of Rules 59 and 61 and violated the settled principles of law. The court quashed and set aside the impugned communication dated 24th March, 2022, as being illegal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, including stone crusher owners and individuals engaged in the extraction and removal of minor minerals, challenged the requirement imposed by the State Government for obtaining a quarry permit under Rule 59 of the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013, to submit an environmental clearance certificate. They argued that such a requirement was not prescribed for quarry permits and was in conflict with the Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Rules 2013 did not require the submission of an environmental clearance certificate for the grant of a quarry permit, and the executive instruction imposing such a requirement was contrary to the provisions of the Rules. The court quashed and set aside the impugned communication dated 24th March, 2022, as being illegal.
Issues: The main issue was whether it was permissible for the State Government to require the submission of an environmental clearance certificate for obtaining a quarry permit under Rule 59 of the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Rules 2013 did not require the submission of an environmental clearance certificate for the grant of a quarry permit, and any executive instruction contrary to the provisions of the Rules could not stand the scrutiny of law. The court emphasized that the executive instruction violated settled principles of law and quashed and set aside the impugned communication dated 24th March, 2022.
Final Decision: The petitions were allowed, and the impugned communication dated 24th March, 2022 was quashed and set aside. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
Sunil B. Shukre, J.
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.
2. A short question involved in all these petitions is-whether it is permissible for the State Government to require a person interested in obtaining quarry permit under Rule 59 of the Maharashtra Minor Mineral Extraction (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2013 (for short Rules, 2013) to submit environmental clearance as a condition precedent by issuing an executive instruction in the nature of impugned communication dated 24th March, 2022?
3. The brief facts leading to filing of these petitions are stated as under:-
b) According to the petitioners, till very recently they used to be granted quarry permits for extraction and removal of minor minerals from the specified area and for a temporary period of time, not more than 30 days at a time, under Rule 59 of the Rules, 2013, without submitting environmental clearance certificate, but, with the issuance of communication dated 24th March, 2022 by respondent no.4, the quarry permits are not being issued to them unless they first submitted environmental clearance certificate from the Competent Authority. Their contention is that quarry permits are different than quarry leases, in the sense that quarry leases are granted usually for five years initially, which period is extendable further up to twenty years thereby making the quarry leases as long term grants but, in case of quarry permits, the permission is granted only for a period of 30 days at a time and it is limited to the areas specified in the permit itself. They further submit that it is this difference which has led to prescription of a condition of environmental clearance certificate to be obtained by the quarry owner for obtaining a quarry lease under the Rules, 2013 and prescribing no such requirement in case of a quarry permit issued under Rules, 2013.
c) The petitioners submit that Rules, 2013 have been framed following directions of the Apex court in the case of Deepak Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2012) 4 SCC 629 and, therefore, it is now the Rules, 2013 which would govern the issue. The petitioners also contend that in any case, executive instructions cannot supersede the Rules, 2013 framed under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals Extraction (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, “Act, 1957”).
4. The respondents have submitted common reply to these petitions. The stand taken by the State Government, as seen from the reply, is that even in the opinion of the State Government, for issuance of a quarry permit under Rule 59 of the Rules 2013, it is not necessary to obtain prior environmental clearance, the permit being for a short term. The reply also gives an explanation about the issuance of the impugned communication. According to State Government, the impugned communication has been issued by it in view of the directions given by the National Green Tribunal passed on 17th February, 2022 in OA No.68/2020 (WZ).
5. Shri Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2153/2022 submits that the National Green Tribunal has not considered the nature of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Kumar (supra) and thus, has held per incuriam that it is the duty of the State of Maharashtra to issue a suitable clarification in view of the fact that its Circular dated 12.12.2013 which clarified that for grant of temporary quarry permits there was no
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the executive instruction requiring the submission of an environmental clearance certificate for a quarry permit was contrary to the provision....
The Court holds that the administrative act of issuing a lease deed follows the grant of quarry lease upon satisfaction of conditions within stipulated timelines.
Any quarry operations shall be permitted only by way of lease agreement, as per Article 299 (I) of the Constitution of India.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that short term quarry permits for minor minerals under Rule 59(1) should be granted based on an application made to the Competent Authority and no....
The court affirmed that applications for quarry leases must comply with statutory rules, and administrative instructions cannot override these provisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exceptional circumstances for granting short term mining licence (STML) under the West Bengal Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 must b....
Failure of lessee - Rule 29 of rules provide for payments to be made under said rules – Rule 29 lays down conditions subject to which quarrying leases are to be granted.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
