Partha Sarthy, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant case in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation has been filed by an ex-Mukhiya, who claims himself to be a social worker, praying for a direction to the respondents to take necessary action to protect the environment and the ecosystem surrounding hillocks named Lomas and Yogyawallakya which have religious, cultural and historical importance and have temples and caves in existence; to conduct a survey with respect to the land, details of which have been given of Circle-Rajauli, District-Nawada as heritage and protected site; to restrain the Department of Mines and Geology as also the District Administration from leasing out the land and ensure that no mining activity is carried out in future in vicinity of the hillocks; to direct the respondents to take necessary steps to conserve, protect and develop the temple staircase and the surrounding; for directing the respondents to protect the forest, water fountain and Khuri river flowing adjoining the said hillocks; to take appropriate action against the Circle Officer for giving an incorrect report, wrongly mentioning that the type of land is not forest land; to withdraw the NOC given for mining activity and for other reliefs.

3. The petitioner contends that the hillocks namely Lomas and Yogyawallakya are situated in Rajauli in the District of Nawada. They have been named after the great Hindu vedic sages and the places also find mention in the District Gazetteer of the British times.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that recently, since the year 2007, the respondents have allowed mining and stone quarrying activities on the hillocks in question in complete disregard to its historical and religious importance as also the adverse impact it is having on the wildlife, ecosystem and biodiversity of the areas. The land in question appertaining to Plot nos.5513 and 5514, all between Rajauli Forest Zone and Koderma Forest Zone, the land being situated within 3.5 kms of the protected forest namely, Baghmari, and thus mining activity cannot be permitted in view of the pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1997) 2 SCC 267]. It is further submitted that the hillock is within 8 kms from the nearest reserve forest ie Koderma Wildlife Sanctuary and the mining activities which includes the sound of blast etc have an adverse impact on the wildlife as also the local population living close by.

5. It is further submitted that by Resolution no. 4387, dated 9.12.2014 issued by Department of Mining and Geology, Government of Bihar which is in consonance with the provisions of the Bihar Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites, Remains and Art Treasures Act, 1976, mining activities have been barred and the same is to be permitted only in accordance with the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Thus, the no objection given for the mining activity on the hillock is contrary to the said resolution as also to the various pronouncements of the Hon’ble Courts. Hence the instant application.

6. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar and more particularly on behalf of the Mines Department, the Tourism Department and the Forest Department.

7. On behalf of the Mines Department it has been stated that the hillocks/places in question do not find mention nor stand notified as ancient historical places under the Bihar Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites, Remains and Art Treasures Act, 1976. Thus, mining cannot be said to be illegal nor is there any contravention of the Rules. On a report having been obtained from the Forest Department, Nawada Division, the nearest forest area being about 3.5 kms away, in the year 2014, the Forest Department also did not have any objection for issuance of mining lease. Six leases were granted in the year 2015. It is stated that a seven member